In the early 16th century the Catholic Church experienced a large separation
which significantly changed Christianity. The separation, which became known as
the "Protestant Reformation", was initiated when Martin Luther (1483-1546), a
Catholic priest, began to publicly challenge numerous teachings of the Catholic
Church. The Catholic doctrines that Martin Luther challenged had been taught
unanimously by the Catholic Church for the 15 centuries prior, going back to the
days of Christ and the Apostles. He was eventually excommunicated by the
Catholic Church, and afterward started the "Lutheran" churches.

Years later, the protesting continued through a Catholic man named John Calvin
(1509-1564). However, he could not come to complete agreement with Luther’s
ideas, and so began to form his own churches (the "Reformed" churches). Ulrich
Zwingli was another reformer who surfaced around the same time, though he could
neither come to agreement with Luther nor Calvin.

The floodgates were now opened, and in the years and centuries following,
numerous other reformation movements surfaced, such as that initiated by John
Knox (starting the Presbyterian church in 1560), Robert Browne (starting the
Congregational church in 1592), and John Smyth (starting the Baptist church in
1609), none of which could come to agreement on their doctrines. Protestant
denominations have snowballed since, all which lack unity, and today there are
literally thousands of them.

Below we show the errors in the doctrines of the reformers (namely Luther and
Calvin), which also apply to the Protestant denominations that have formed
since. Most of the arguments we present were compiled from the writings of St.
Francis de Sales, who brought thousands back to the Catholic Church through his
writings in the 16th and 17th centuries. The facts we present below show that
the tenets of this revolution and the Protestant religions based on them cannot
be correct. Lastly, we present examples from the writings of the early Church
Fathers (the first Christians in the centuries after the Apostles) showing that
they were certainly Catholic, and not Protestant.

1.
The Protestant
reformers had no legitimate mission from God (or from someone given power by
God) to reform the Church:

Jesus Christ instructed His Apostles to preach the Gospel to the whole
world, therefore they had an "immediate" mission from God. St. Paul
sent
Timothy of Ephesus and Titus of Crete as Bishops to help him on his first mission, therefore
they had a "mediate" mission
from someone given the power by God to send them.

On the other hand, never have we seen any of the Protestant reformers
show any mission from God or from anyone else to
reform the church. Rather it is readily apparent they wrongfully took it upon themselves to make
reforms. "How shall they preach unless they be sent"? Romans 10:15.

No individual has the right to associate himself
with the Apostles or attempt to act under their authority; the individual must
be sent or commissioned with divine authority. "He that entereth not by the
door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and
a robber" John 10:1.
Here we see Martin Luther openly agreeing with this.

Considerverses such as "As the Father
hath sent me, I also send you" John 20:21 and "He that receiveth
whomsoever I send, receiveth me" John 13:20.

How can people without any authority attempt to make such drastic
decisions affecting a divinely founded, global Church? Laity or princes do not have authority or power to start such a mission,
rather someone must be sent legitimately, in Apostolic fashion, such as from a
Bishop, or their mission is null. "Neither doth any man take the honor to
himself but he that is called by God, as Aaron was." Hebrews 5:4

If you say the reformers were given appropriate mission to reform the
Catholic Church, then we ask who is the authority that sent them? We know it was not
the Catholic Church for the ideas of the Reformation are against Catholic
teaching, and it was not the Lutheran and other Protestant churches for they were not yet formed
when the reformation was being organized. So on who's authority was the
mission of the Reformation?

If the church from which the Protestant reformers came were true,
they can only be labeled heretics for having left it. And if the church from which the
reformers came
were NOT true, then that church could not have given the reformers true mission to
reform the Catholic Church.

2. To those who say the Protestant reformers had an immediate mission from God
to reform the Catholic Church:

To claim that the Protestant reformers were given direct mission by God to
reform the church requires undeniable proof, otherwise people all over the
world could easily claim direct mission from God on all sorts of beliefs, then
where would we be? Then each time we thought we were following the truth we would be
forever interrupted by men claiming an extraordinary vocation. Is that how
Jesus intended His Church to be?

Consider the miracles sent by God through Moses so that others would
believe his mission. Also consider the miracles performed by Jesus and the
Apostles so that the people would believe their word. Yet the Protestant
reformers, despite making the most drastic changes to the Catholic Church
since its founding, have never shown a miracle or any other sign to prove their mission, as
would have occurred elsewhere in Scripture with such a drastic change to the
faith. Jesus did not hesitate to show signs when reforming the Church,
so what audacity do the Protestant reformers have to propose changes as drastic
as Jesus made without showing any signs? "Believe you not that I am in the
Father, and the Father in me? Otherwise believe for the very works' sake.
Amen, amen I say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also
shall do; and greater than these shall he do." John 14:11,12

Why should we take the Protestant reformers mere word without a sign? He
who boasts an extraordinary mission from God without immediately producing
undeniable signs cannot be believed.

If there was a true immediate mission from God to reform the church, then
we ask which one had the true mission; Luther, Calvin, or another reformer?
Each of these men had opposing beliefs from the start which resulted in
different denominations so it is quite obvious these men did not have an
immediate mission from God.

For those who would like to claim the Protestant reformers were true
prophets, why did they act contrary to all other prophets before them by not
showing any undeniable signs to prove their words, and by opposing the one
true Church which no other true prophet has ever done?

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides
that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" Galatians 1:8.

Consider the repeated vulgarities in the writings of the reformers.
Did Our Lord or the Apostles or Saints speak in this manner? Are we really to
believe that someone sent from God to reform the Church was to speak in this
manner?

Furthermore, why would Luther claim he was not
someone holy if he
truly had an immediate mission from God to reform the Church?

And lastly, the Protestant reformers such as
Luther and Calvin each have openly claimed the Catholic Church to
have been the True Church
during the early centuries of Christianity. Then later when these men fell
into disagreement with the Church, they suddenly claimed it was a false
Church. Do you think someone who had an immediate mission from God would
teach that something is true, then later recant and teach the exact
opposite? Have we ever seen Our Lord or His Apostles teach us something and
then later have a change of heart and teach us the exact opposite? It is
plainly obvious that hypocritical teaching is not from God.

Nowhere in Scripture will it ever be found that the Church is invisible.
Rather references in Scripture are everywhere which point to a visible Church.
How are the following verses to be understood of an invisible Church?

"And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if
he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican"
Matt 18:17.

"Take heed to yourselves, and to the
whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the
church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Acts 20:28

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave
thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the
pillar and ground of the truth" 1 Tim 3:15

"And sending from Miletus to Ephesus, he called the ancients of the church"
Acts 20:17

"And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and
by the apostles and ancients, declaring how great things God had done with
them" Acts 15:4

"And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed
with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed" Acts
14:22

"And when they were come, and had assembled the church, they related what
great things God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith
to the Gentiles" Acts 14:26

"And going down to Caesarea, he went up to Jerusalem, and saluted the
church, and so came down to Antioch" Acts 18:22

It is illogical to think that Jesus would establish His Church then make it
invisible and inaccessible to us. If that were the case, where would one seek
it to rule it, converse with it and lay complaints before it?

When the Church sent St. Paul, and received him, when he confirmed it, ordained
priests in it, assembled it, saluted it, wrote to it, and persecuted it, was
this just in spirit? These were visible acts on both sides!

The pastors and doctors of the Church are visible, therefore the Church is
visible. The pastors and their sheep must know each other. What kind of
shepherd cannot see his flock? St. Peter was as to a pastor when Jesus told
him, "feed my sheep", and so were the Apostles, and they are all
visible.

It is the property of the Church to carry on the preaching of the Word of
God, the Sacraments etc. How could this be called invisible?

How do Christians begin their course as people
of God? By Baptism, a visible sign. And by whom are they governed? By bishops,
which are visible men. And how has the Church been persecuted over the
centuries? By visible people. Need we say more?

To put it simply, the body is composed of body and soul, and so is the
Church. The Church consists of Her interior soul, which is faith, hope,
charity, grace etc (all invisible), and Her exterior, which is her members,
preaching, Sacraments, sacrifices etc (all visible).

Some Protestants, in defense of the invisible Church theory, have claimed that there are
two Churches; one visible and imperfect Church made of its members (which can
err and are called "reprobate"), and one invisible and perfect Church made of
the "elect" that only God knows (which cannot err). Not only is this belief
not found in Scripture but it is also illogical as we will now explain:

It is well known that all members of the Church must have their sins loosed
and retained as Scripture says. Those whose sins are retained are considered
reprobate (this includes priests and bishops), though they remain members of the
Church until their sins are loosed. It is not until a person is cast from the
Church that they are no longer considered members. Judas was reprobate, yet he
was Apostle and bishop.
To say only the elect (which Calvin and other reformers say are unknown to us)
are members of the true Church is to say we cannot know for sure who our
prelates are and who to pay obedience to. This goes to show that not only the
elect, but also the reprobate are in the Church. The Church is equivalent to
an army with good and bad soldiers, many of which stray or are killed, but the
army as a whole still remains victorious over the gates of hell despite
downfalls of its members.

In summary, the New Testament frequently refers
to the Church as an external, visible society. How then could Our Lord require
us to believe under penalty of damnation (Mark 16:18) and to consider the
Christian disobedient to the Church's commands "a heathen and a publican"
(Matt 18:17) if we could not easily and unmistakably recognize the Church as a
visible society?

4. To those who say the Catholic Church perished, which brought about the need
for a reformation:

To say that the Church perished or went apostate is blasphemous against the Passion of Our
Lord. Didn't Jesus undergo His passion and death for us that He could
establish His Church for all of us? Of what sense does it make that Our Lord
should let go of His Church which cost Him so dear right after He established
it? Of what sense would it make that He would take it back from us after
giving it to us? How could He have abandoned the Church, which cost Him all of
His blood? Do you think that Jesus is weaker than His adversary, the devil,
and was overcome by him?

In Scripture Jesus clearly made promises on promises pertaining to the
perpetuity of His Church. To say the Church perished is to call Jesus a liar.
"and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt 16:18)

Who gave Luther and Calvin a commission to revoke so many holy and solemn
promises which Our Lord made of His Church? Did Our Lord not say of His
Church, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"? (Matt 16:18)
And didn't He say, "behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation
of the world" Matthew 28:20? And didn't Our Lord say "And I will
ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide
with you for ever" John 14:16? And don't we see repeated mention in
the New Testament that Our Lord will be with us? How can all of these promises stand if the Church
perished or went apostate? And if the true Church is to last forever as Christ told us, how can
it have failed or went apostate for a thousand years as the Protestant reformers claim?

He who thinks himself to be the reformer or resuscitator of the Catholic
Church attributes to himself the honor due to Jesus alone, and makes himself
greater than the Apostles. The Apostles preserved the Church by their ministry
after Our Lord instituted it. He who says that he has found the Church dead
and raised it to life himself is the most audacious human alive.

If the Church did perish and the Protestant reformers were the ones to
truly resuscitate the Church back to a true state, that would make them
greater than the Apostles. But never have they shown any signs or wonders of
such greatness in their lives as the Apostles did!

To say that the Church perished sometime after the first five or six
centuries as the Protestant reformers say is to imply nothing else than our
predecessors for nearly 1000 years before the reformation are damned, for
outside of the true Church there is no salvation.

And lastly, there is no doubt there were
problems in the Church before the Reformation. The Church has always had
problems in every century and has always been persecuted, as Our Lord told us
would be the case. We also see in Scripture that Our Lord said He would be
with His Church forever and that it would never fail. Looking at the history
of the Church, whenever problems had arisen, the Church, guided by the Holy
Ghost, always called together General Councils and corrected the problems. If
there were problems in the Church before the Reformation, it was not up to
unknown men like Luther and Calvin to try and correct them on their own
without any authority when it was well known that the Church had always used
General Councils to correct problems for the 1500 years prior.

The Protestant reformers such as Calvin and Beza claim the Catholic Church to
have been the True Church during the
early centuries of Christianity
(before they claim it fell into error). During those five hundred years the
Church had fought and condemned the doctrines of the Protestant reformers. Yet
now Calvin and Beza have the audacity to offer the same doctrines again as medicine and holy
reformations? If when the True Church in the early centuries of Christianity
declared those Protestant beliefs to be error, how can the Protestant reformers now claim
them to be truth and to base their new churches on them?

If the Church can err, to whom shall we have recourse in our difficulties?
Protestants will say Scripture. We do not doubt that we must believe in and
consult Scripture, but what if our difficulty pertains to Scripture itself?
How can we find an answer? I cannot go to Luther or Calvin for they have
opposing opinions. Do you really think Our Lord went to the trouble to
establish His Church just to leave us in anarchy with no recourse on matters
which could or could not damn us?

All denominations shout their claims with equal assurance that their interpretation of
Scripture is accurate, which would leave all others inaccurate. To say Our
Lord has not left us any guides to help us choose the good from the bad in an
environment that He knew contained much error, is to say that He wishes us to
perish, which we know He does not.

Our Lord said, "And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if
he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican"
(Matt 18:17). How else can this be understood than Our Lord sends us to
the Church in our differences?

If the Church can err, and God commands us to go to the Church, then this
means God wishes to deceive us. Does it make sense that God would send all of
His lambs to the slaughter by commanding them to consult a Church that can contain
error?

When St. Paul says, "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how
thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of
the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), why
would he call the Church the "pillar and ground of truth" if it could
contain error?

If the Church did err and the Protestant reformers started churches of their own as
they did, then how can we explain this verse from Scripture: "And he hath
subjected all things under his feet, and hath made him head over all the
church" (Ephesians 1:22). This verse refers to Jesus being head of ONE
church, not multiple churches such as those started by Lutheran, Calvin and subsequent
Protestants.

It must be made clear here that when we refer to
the Church not erring, we are referring to the Church not misguiding the
faithful with respect to faith and morals, which we are required to hear and
know for our salvation. The Church at the same time is also a human society
because it consists of human members. This is why scandals, heresies, schisms
and sins among its members also arise. These sins are expected with human
beings and do not indicate a failure of a divinely founded Church that Our
Lord promised would never fail! Did the mission of all the Apostles fail or
cease to be because Judas turned to betrayal? Of course not. Christ Himself
foretold of these type of problems in Scripture when He spoke parables in
Matthew 13 regarding the cockle growing together with the wheat and the net
containing good fish and bad fish. Consider the verses, "Again the kingdom
of heaven is like to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all
kind of fishes. Which, when it was filled, they drew out, and sitting by the
shore, they chose out the good into vessels, but the bad they cast forth. So
shall it be at the end of the world. The angels shall go out, and shall
separate the wicked from among the just." Matthew 13:47-49.

In summary, Our Lord said His Church would never
fail, yet we clearly see members of His Church making mistakes due to their
human natures. These mistakes clearly do not indicate failure of the Church. Again, the Church is equivalent to an army with good and bad
soldiers, many of which stray or are killed, but this does not affect the army
as a whole. The same applies to the true Church of Christ; it continues
unscathed over the gates of hell despite the downfalls of its members.

The Protestant reformers have
said the Catholic Church was the true Church
in Her early days. It is important to note that it is the Catholic Church
who, through Her early Councils, originally confirmed which books of the Bible were considered inspired, and which
books were to be included in the Canon of the Bible itself. This was essential
to assure copies of Scripture had in those days agreed with the originals, and
also to weed out books which contained heretical doctrine in them. The
Catholic Church confirmed the
books (the Canon) of the Bible in the Councils of Hippo (393) and 3rd Council of Carthage (397) when, according to the Protestant reformers, She
was still the true Church (click
here
for the actual Council text and scroll down to see the list of books in the
Canon at that time, which is the same Canon used by the Catholic Church today). The Catholic Church also confirmed the same Canon at
the Council of Florence (1441) and Council of Trent centuries later and have
used the same Canon ever since the Council of Hippo in 393. How then did the Protestant reformers remove so
many books (i.e. Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Machabees, Wisdom etc) from the Old
and New Testaments if it was the true Church that ruled they were Canonical? If
the Protestant reformers truly thought the Catholic Church was the
true Church
at one time then later fell into error, why do the reformers not follow the
decisions the Church made when She was still supposedly true?

Who told the Protestant reformers that the books they removed from the
Bible were not legitimate and by what authority did they remove them? Some
Protestant reformers claim some books were rejected because they were not in
Hebrew or Chaldaic, though some other books that were kept by the Protestant
reformers were not in these languages either, so this excuse cannot be used.
And where is it found in Scripture that they should be written in a certain
language?

To say that some books were not accepted because they were not accepted by
the Jews does not apply to the point at hand either. The Catholic Church holds the
books of Machabees and others mentioned above as Canonical, and if she was the
true Church when She determined this, then this is what must be believed.
Because the Jews did not accept the deutero-canonical books does not effect
the fact that the early Christian Church accepted them. Where in Scripture
does it say the Christian Church has not as much power to give authority to
the Sacred Books as the Mosaic may have had?

Why do the Protestant reformers call parts of Scripture false when the
whole of antiquity has held them as articles of faith? We see many writers
from the first three centuries including St. Clement of Rome, St. Irenaeus,
St. Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian and many others all allude to the deutero-canonical
books we mention above. Who gave the reformers the
direction to declare these books false? For example, the book of Judith was made authoritative by the
Council of Nice, when the Church was never greater or more solemn. Why
blatantly defy the decisions of this council?

Of those reformers who claim their decisions to strike books from the
Canon are from the Holy Ghost, we ask that you please show proof. Why would the Holy Ghost
suddenly give inspirations as to what everyone must believe to unknown men
like
Luther and Calvin, after they abandoned the Councils and the entire Church?
Shall we simply believe the reformers at their word? How then do we believe or
not believe the next person who also claims the same inspiration? If the
Protestant reformers were inspired, then God would clearly show the world a
sign like with others inspired in Scripture, but a sign the reformers have not
shown so they are not to be believed.

If God had revealed something a thousand times over to a private person we
should not be obliged to believe it unless God gave us such an undeniable sign
that we could no longer call it into question. How else are we to separate the
false prophet from the true prophet? If we were obliged to believe everyone
claiming internal revelations, we would soon be swamped with deceivers and
would be completely lost.

Where did the Protestant reformers come up with the exact list of books in
the Canon they choose to follow? Who told them which books should be included
or removed? It was not the Jews that told them as the Gospels would not be there. It was not
from the Council of Laodicea for the Apocalypse would be in it. It was not
from the Council of Carthage or Florence for Ecclesiasticus and Machabees
would be included. So where did the reformers decide on their specific list of
books to include? No such Canon was used before the Protestant reformation as
the many Protestant denominations use now. What is the likelihood that the
Holy Spirit hid for the first 1400+ years of the Church, then revealed a new
Canon to two unknown men, namely Luther and Calvin?

The Protestant reformers have taken away many books from the original
Scriptures such as Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom and
both books of Machabees. In the ancient Church there was originally some doubt
about some books being inspired and no doubt about many others, yet the
Protestant reformers have accepted some of the doubtful and cast out some that
were never doubtful. So why were the specific set of books cut from the
Scriptures by the Protestant reformers other than that the doctrine of some
were hard for them to accept? The reformers do not give a logical answer for
their striking some books from the Canon and it is clear that they were simply
contradicting the Church. It just so happens that the contents of the books of
Machabees contains doctrine on the intercession of Saints and prayers for the
departed and Ecclesiasticus contains doctrine on the honor of relics, which is
doctrine that just so happens to be accepted by the Catholic Church and denied
by the reformers. Remember, it was the Catholic Church in Her early days (when
She was the True Church according to the Protestant reformers) that
received the books Machabees as canonical along with the other books of
Scripture. So why defy the Church on just Machabees?

7. The translations and interpretations of the Scriptures have been violated by
the Protestant reformers:

It is one thing for the Protestant reformers to dare cut off entire books,
chapters, sentences and words from Scripture, but even more, the books that
they chose not to cut off they have corrupted and violated by their
translations. Compare the Vulgate Latin translation from the middle of the
second century, (universally received by the Church at that time and declared
as authentic by the Council of Trent) to translations of Scripture Protestant
churches use today. There is a night and day difference in wording. And even
worse, compare translations of Scripture between different Protestant
denominations and they also differ!

How can private men (the reformers) so boldly take their hand to the
word of God and change it? If one man does such a thing, then what is to stop
the next man from doing it to his taste, and the next to his taste? An
example:
In Acts 2:27 we see, "thou wilt not leave my soul in hell" while in a
version of a Protestant bible we see the verse, "thou shalt not leave my
corpse in the tomb". Clearly this is not an accurate translation and the
meaning is not at all the same. It is common knowledge that only one word
can change the meaning of an entire sentence. We note here
that Hieronymus Emser, a literary opponent of Luther, points out 1400
inaccuracies in Luther's translation of Scripture, while Bunsen, a Protestant
scholar, points out 3000. If Luther,
Calvin and other reformers' translations of a verse in Scripture differ from
the original AND from each other, which one is the word of God? Or are all
three versions of the verse still the word of God, though their translation
may make their meaning completely different from the next? How can so many
brains which are so different make so many translations without overthrowing
the sincerity of Scripture?

It has always been a practice of the early Church to limit the Scriptures
to universal languages such as Greek and Latin since they are not only
universal but also not subject to changes like other languages. Most other
languages change town to town in accents, phrases, and words (i.e. slang), and vary season
to season and age to age and therefore it has never been recommended by the
early Christian Church to translate the Bible to other languages that are not fixed
languages. Doing so has much more danger than profit as we can see from our
example above. Though we note here also that the early Christian Church has never
disallowed translation of the Scriptures to non-fixed languages, though She
has always insisted that public services of the Church use a fixed language
translation to avoid possibly misleading the faithful with verses of possibly
incorrect translation and meaning.

In summary, the Protestant reformers not only made major changes to
Scripture by poor translations, but also translated Scripture to all the local
non-fixed languages of the people where they started their churches, and they
use those faulty translations in their church services. Is it not evident why
there are so many Protestant interpretations of Scripture all in conflict with
one another?

8. To those who claim they can interpret and understand the Scriptures
themselves:

The Protestant reformers claim that we simply need to refer to Scripture
for our salvation. We agree, but when two people disagree on the
interpretation of Scripture, who shall be the judge as to the correct
interpretation? Disagreements arise in nearly every verse of Scripture of
which could easily lead one of the parties to damnation. It is illogical to
think that Our Lord would expect us all to interpret Scripture on our own with
no judge to turn to since this will always lead to endless disagreements.
There can be countless wrong answers to a question, but only one right answer.
All of those interpreting Scripture incorrectly will be lead down the wrong
road. It is illogical for us to think God left us in anarchy with respect to
interpretation of Scripture, at the mercy of the winds and the tide, with no
pilot to help steer the way, as this would mean he wishes our destruction. As
with a ship at sea, if everyone attempts to steer in the direction they think
is right, we will inevitably wind up lost.

Consider the Constitution of the United States if there were no U.S.
Government to rule over it and make decisions over conflicts and offenses that
arise with it. The result would be anarchy. Where have you ever seen any great
province or organization which has governed itself? Consider any governed country,
state, or any organized group throughout the history of the world. All were
governed by an earthly leader of some sort or else they would wind up in chaos
and confusion. If there were not a king in a kingdom, a foreman in a shop, or
a captain of a ship, there would be no order. Why then do the Protestant reformers claim that all of their members do not need an
earthly ruler to help guide them? What has this gotten them but thousands of
opposing denominations (and growing) which is nothing better than anarchy? Never can a
province be well governed by itself, especially when it is large.

If it is true that the Scriptures are so easy to understand, what is the
use of the commentaries made by countless Protestant ministers, and what good
are so many schools of Theology?

Also consider the verse, "As also in all his epistles, speaking in
them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which
the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to
their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16). How else can we interpret this than
to say Scripture is difficult to understand, and to interpret it incorrectly
can lead to our destruction?

And to those who say they must read and understand Scripture themselves,
consider the large number of poor ignorant people who cannot read the
Scriptures. What is to happen of them? Obviously they can find and seek their
salvation through the mouth of a pastor. "How shall they believe him,
of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?"
Romans 10:14.

Consider the verse, "And Philip running thither, heard him reading the
prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou
readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired
Philip that he would come up and sit with him." Acts 8:30-31. Obviously
interpretation of Scripture is needed!

9. To those who do not believe in Apostolic tradition, but in Scripture alone (Sola
Scriptura):

The Bible was not put under one cover until the
Councils of Hippo (393) and 3rd Council of Carthage (397) accepted the
official list of books (click
here
for the actual Council text and scroll down to see the list of books in the
Canon at that time, which is the same as used by the Catholic Church today). Not for over 1000 years after these
early Councils was
the printing press invented (~1450), so Bible manuscripts were quite rare and
costly before the printing press came about. Between 397 and 1450 then, how
did most people learn about the contents of Scripture, and who was the
authoritative figure for the early Church during these centuries? The authority clearly could not
have been the Bible, but clearly was the Church Herself who preached it to the
faithful. So how can Scripture have been
our only guide for the centuries before copies of the Bible were readily
available, and were the people who lived during those centuries all damned
because they did not have access to Scripture?

Consider this verse from Scripture: "Many other signs also did Jesus in
the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are
written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and
that believing, you may have life in his name" John 20:30-31. What else
does this tell us than Jesus did and said other things that were not recorded
in Scripture? Are we really to think that anything Jesus did or said that
didn't make it into the books of Scripture are false or should not be adhered
to?

Consider the verse, "But there are also many other things which Jesus
did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would
not be able to contain the books that should be written" John 21:25.
Clearly there are many things Jesus said and did that were passed on as
tradition (by word of mouth) and did not make it into the books of Scripture.

Nowhere in Scripture do we see references to Jesus
writing anything down during His public life, nor does Scripture show that He ever
asked His Apostles to write down what He was teaching either. We can see only
Peter, Paul, James, John Jude, Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote parts of
what Our Lord taught, the others did not write anything as far as is
recorded. If Scripture
were the ONLY resource we should have for our salvation, surely Jesus and His
Apostles would have written constantly, but they did not. Instead Scripture
shows that the Apostles TAUGHT as they were instructed by Our Lord:
"Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" Matt 28:19. So while Scripture
is essential, tradition is also essential.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say Scripture alone should be accepted as
revelation, and it certainly does not say we should condemn Apostolic
tradition. Look all through the Gospels and you will see nothing spoken
against tradition except for traditions which are human or against Scripture.
Why do the Protestant reformers add this to Our Lord's words? It is forbidden
to add anything to Scripture, as it is to take anything away from it. Why do
the Protestant reformers also take away the traditions which are expressly
authorized?

Consider the verse, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the
traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." 2
Thessalonians 2:14. What else does this tell us than the Apostles spread
the word of God not only through Epistles, but also by WORD, and that we
should hold to the traditions which we are taught?

Any unwritten Apostolic doctrine we call Tradition. Consider the verse, "If
any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto
judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come." 1 Corinthians 11:34.
This clearly shows St. Paul writing important words to the Corinthians, then
stating he will "set the rest in order" when he comes, yet we do not
have writing about them elsewhere. What he said then, will it be lost to the
Church? No, it has come down through tradition.

Consider the verse, "Having more things to write unto you, I would not
by paper and ink: for I hope that I shall be with you, and speak face to face:
that your joy may be full." 2 John 1:12. St. John had something worthy of
being written yet he chose to speak instead. Instead of Scripture, he has made
tradition.

Consider the verse, "Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast
heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus." 2 Timothy
1:13. This is clearly St. Paul recommending to St. Timothy an unwritten
Apostolic word. This is tradition!

Also consider the verse, "And the things which thou hast heard of me by
many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach
others also." 2 Timothy 2:2. What is this but the Apostle speaking, the
witnesses relating, and St. Timothy teaching, followed by these teaching
others? This is clearly tradition.

Consider the verse, "I have yet many things to say to you: but you
cannot bear them now" John 16:12. When did He say these things which He
had to say? Was it all written? It is also said that He was forty days with them
teaching them of the Kingdom of God, but we have neither all of His
apparitions nor everything He told them during that time.

Consider the verses, "Teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” Matthew 28:20,
and “He that heareth you, heareth me"
Luke 10:16, etc. This clearly shows the Apostles teaching is true revelation.

10. To those who believe that faith alone (Sola Fide) justifies our salvation:

Nowhere in the bible does it state faith "alone" justifies, and this new
doctrine was not heard of before the 16th century. Why did the Protestant
reformers propose it and what authority gave it to them?

Consider the verse, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you
from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I
was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in.
Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you
came to me." Matthew 25:34-36. Are these not examples of good works? Why
would Our Lord give them so much emphasis if only faith was of importance?

Consider the verses, "And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do
that I may have life everlasting? Who said to him: Why asketh thou me
concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the
commandments. He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder,
Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear
false witness. Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself. The young man saith to him: All these I have kept from my
youth, what is yet wanting to me? Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect,
go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in
heaven: and come follow me." Matt 19:16-21. Are the above verses not
filled with good works? How much more proof from Scripture do we need to show
that Our Lord commanded us to do good works for our salvation?

Consider the verse, "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels:
and then will he render to every man according to his works." Matthew 16:27.
Again here we have more proof that good works are required of us.

Consider the verse, "And every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labor." 1 Corinthians 3:8.
Again this clearly does NOT refer to faith alone, but to labor, which is
works.

Consider the verse, "And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all
knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains,
and have not charity, I am nothing." 1 Corinthians 13:2 (St Paul).
What is charity other than helping the needy? Charity is clearly considered
among good works. And in the same Chapter we also see the verse, "And now
there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of
these is charity." (1 Corinthians 13:13). This clearly puts charity
BEFORE faith, so to say "faith alone" is all that is required of us is
clearly contrary to Scripture.

Consider the verse, "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?" James
2:24. How much more plain can it be said that faith alone is not enough
for our salvation?

Consider the verse, "What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath
not works? Shall faith be able to save him?" James 2:14. And we see
several verses later that the answer to this question is NO.

Consider the verse, "So faith also, if it have not works, is
dead in itself." James 2:17. No explanation is needed for this verse!

Consider the verse, "But some man will say: Thou hast faith,
and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by
works, my faith." James 2:18. Another
extremely obvious verse that proves our point on the subject.

Consider the verses, "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith
without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works,
offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?" James 2:20-21.
No explanation is needed for these verses.

Consider the verse, "For even as the body without the spirit is
dead; so also faith without works is dead." James 2:26.
How can the Protestant reformers claim faith
is sufficient when we read a verse like this with such obvious meaning?

And finally consider the verse, "Wherefore, brethren, labor the more, that by good works you may make sure
your calling and election." 2 Peter 1:10

In summary, justification by faith alone has
overwhelming opposition in Scripture. Some Protestants have been known
to reference other verses from Scripture in an attempt to show that works are
NOT required for our salvation. However if one looks at verses that appear to
speak negatively about works, they are clearly referring to works that glorify
men and not God. Here we agree; works done to please men do not help with attaining
our salvation.

First, it cannot be that the true Church is divided of belief in opinion,
as God would no longer be its author. God, a God of Truth, could not possibly
have revealed a plurality of religions, or a multitude of varying
Christianities. Our Lord taught one religion and founded one Church, not
multiple ones. The Protestant denominations clearly fall into this category
with their thousands of denominations, all with beliefs opposing the other.
How can we call thousands of opposing denominations a reformation of the
Church? Our Lord's threat of damnation for not believing clearly condemns the
opposing Protestant denominations that have formed since the Protestant
reformation.

Consider the verse, "And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them:
Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or
house divided against itself shall not stand." Matthew 12:25. Are not
Protestant denominations divided among themselves with little hope to reunite?

Consider the verse, "And let the peace of Christ rejoice in your
hearts, wherein also you are called in one body: and be ye thankful."
Colossians 3:15. One body is one Church, and cannot possibly be thousands
of opposing denominations.

When the Protestant reformers brought forward the belief that each was to
interpret Scripture on his own, that made each person on earth equivalent to
the next. Under this belief a lay person is equivalent to a priest or
minister, therefore it is optional for a lay person to consult them. This
situation inevitably leads to conflicts between all of these "equal" people
claiming their interpretation is correct, which inevitably leads to different
denominations which inevitably leads to multiple doctrines. As already
mentioned above, nowhere is it found in Scripture that we are to
interpret Scripture on our own, rather Scripture does clearly indicate Our
Lord instructed His Apostles to, "Go ye into the whole world, and preach
the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be
saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." Matthew 16:15.
Clearly we must believe in one religion as taught by the Apostolic successors
to be saved, not to believe two unknowns like Luther or Calvin, or any other
number of reformers claiming different doctrines.

Looking at all the Catholic Church has been through with respect to
heresies and persecution, the same faith remains in
Catholics century to century. Looking at any random point in the history of
the Catholic Church, if there was ever a difference in opinion relating to
faith or morals, a General Council or the Roman See, guided by the Holy Ghost, has always determined what
the correct belief should be, and you will see every Catholic has always
submitted to their decisions and argued no more. The Protestant denominations
do not have this structure, and therefore they will forever be in disagreement
and will forever have multiple doctrines. Can one really call this
introduction of contradicting doctrines a reformation of the Church? This is
not the teaching of Our Lord.

The Protestant reformers such as Luther and Calvin did
not even agree on the
same canon of Scriptures from the start of the Reformation. They also differ in opinion on things such as number
of Sacraments and other beliefs. For example, Protestant denominations
are as much divided among themselves regarding Justification than they are
divided with the Catholic Church, with no hope of ever coming to an agreement.
Scripture cannot be their judge because it is concerning Scripture that they
are in disagreement. From the start of the Reformation this was clearly a red
flag that this so-called reformation of the Church was not sent from God, as
why would God suddenly decide to spin off multiple denominations with opposing
doctrines? Why didn't Jesus teach, approve or ever hint of such a thing?

Those who have a diversity of canon, that are divided
into thousands of opposing denominations with different beliefs, cannot
"add up" to one true Church, and neither can they be called by the name of "Church" like the Catholic Church can who has one same
head, the same canon of the Scriptures, and one like rule for interpreting
them. "He that is not with me, is against me" Matthew 12:30.

It is very common these days to get a variety of answers when asking Protestants if their
denomination holds the truth over other Protestant denominations. We've heard
some Protestants claim "Our denomination is not 100% correct". If not,
then we ask why are you a part of that denomination? If your denomination is not the true
Church as
Christ gave to us, which denomination IS the true Church, the pillar of truth?
We know it must exist somewhere because Christ promised us it would always
exist.

We have also heard some Protestants claim that it is not for them to
place judgment on the correctness of any denomination. We ask, why not? Our
Lord clearly laid out what the truth is and how we are to be saved, why are
you now unsure about it, and most of all why are you indifferent about it?
Here we present two points against these illogical claims:

1) For one to claim they
are a Lutheran or Presbyterian or some other Protestant, but yet be indifferent and not claim their religion
is the true or correct religion is absurdity. How can one be indifferent in what they
believe? This is the same as believing truth and error are both acceptable. Are mathematicians indifferent in the outcome of their equations? Are
scientists indifferent in their studies? If they were, they would not have the
respect of their peers and would not be mathematicians or scientists. Where
would we be if every scientist or mathematician or doctor were to be indifferent in
their work and always produce uncertain results generation to generation?
What you believe in must be the truth from your perspective or you cannot
claim you believe in it. The fact of the matter is, if no one is an authority
and if everyone is open to their own interpretation of Scripture, this
inevitably leads to indifferentism, for who knows who is right! Nowhere else
in the world will you see the concept of indifferentism accepted as we see with
Protestant denominations. It is just as wrong to deny the faith than it is
to be indifferent about searching for it!

2) If one Protestant denomination believes in the
real presence in the Holy Eucharist, and another believes it to be a symbol
only, these are directly opposing views and only one can be the truth. If the
Symbolic point of view were true, then the believers in the real presence would be
guilty of idolatry among other things and if the real presence is true, the
symbolic believer would be following a false religion. How can Protestants be
indifferent about denominations when critical beliefs such as this separate them? How
could Protestants be neutral on a belief that would decide whether we are saved or damned? Only one
belief is true according to Our Lord. To say one religion is as good as another when such
massive differences exist between each of them is to say truth and error are
acceptable to Our Lord, which is simply absurd. Our Lord never taught multiple doctrines!

First, let us define the two types miracles; first class
and second class. In this section, when we refer to miracles, we are
referring to those of the first class, as explained on our Miracles
Page.

First class miracles were obviously left with the Church to confirm Her teaching. No
doubt first class miracles were originally used to confirm the word of Moses, that he
might be believed. And Our Lord said that if He himself had not done miracles, the Jews
would not have been obliged to believe him. And we know by looking at the
history of the Catholic Church and Her Saints that they have always been
resplendent with first class miracles, of which have never stopped. We know this based on
the many authors we have with irreproachable authority century after century. Why then do some
Protestants attempt to say miracles have ceased from the Church? Miracles have
always been with the Church and therefore they are a property of the Church.
If God used miracles to speak to men in Scripture, why would He remove this
from the Church He established for all of us?

Consider the verse, "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In
my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. They
shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not
hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover."
Mark 16:17,18. Our Lord does not say "all" believers would work miracles,
and does not say miracles would be limited to just the Apostles or limited
just to the years in which they lived, but simply that miracles will follow "those
who believe”.

Consider the verse, "Otherwise believe for the very works' sake. Amen, amen I say to you,
he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do; and greater than
these shall he do." John 14:12. The part of the verse "he also shall
do; and greater than these shall he do" clearly backs up the other verse
directly above with respect to the miracles Jesus performed. "Believe for
the very works' sake" confirms that miracles are but signs to make us
believe.

In a nutshell, "those
who believe” are in the church, and those believers are
followed by miracles, therefore in the Church there are miracles. There are
believers in all times, and believers are followed by miracles, therefore in
all times there are miracles.

13. Only the
Catholic Church has been shown to be accompanied with repeated first class miracles:

To assure our points below are understood,
please see our explanation of first and second class miracles on our
Miracles page (if you have not
already done so) before reading this section.

There is simply no
doubt about the repeated astounding miracles associated with Catholic Church
and Her Saints over the centuries, which so many historians describe, and so
many persons had a part in, and where so much evidence is left behind, many of
which took place in the Church’s early years when the Protestant reformers
considered the Catholic Church to be the true Church. Some quick examples are
St. Francis of Paula raising the dead to life, St. Francis Xavier raising a
man to life and healing the paralyzed, deaf, dumb and blind. There are many,
many bodies of Saints discovered incorrupt without embalming even after
being centuries under ground, and these bodies spanning nearly 20 centuries
are still on display all over Europe. There are also many,
many books dedicated to these happenings and others. Yet the Protestant
reformers have chosen to play down these happenings and even deny them, we can
only assume because
these first class miracles have not been found in their churches. To deny such an
overwhelming number of occurrences with an abundance of credible witnesses and
evidence is simply looking the other way. And to try and claim 2000 years of
first class miracles are either all lies, hallucinations, or simply not
miracles at all is absurdity. If the writings of repeated first class miracles
in the Catholic Church are not miracles, then how can they be explained?

Some Protestant denominations have also attempted to claim that these miracles seen throughout the
Church's history are all from Satan. We answer that to collectively claim all of the greatest of Saints throughout
2000 years of Church history all performed miracles via Satan is as absurd as saying Our Lord
cast out devils by the devil.

For those Protestants who claim
that they have
first class miracles in their churches, we ask that you please bring forward proof
for your claims as the Catholic
Church always has. It is possible second class miracles may be experienced by
anyone that God chooses, but second class miracles are always questionable and
are of no comparison to the first class miracles experienced repeatedly in the Catholic Church
over the centuries. We have yet to see any proof for first class miracles in
Protestant churches such as Saints raising
others from the dead, Saints incorrupt bodies, the stigmata and SO many other
astounding occurrences seen in the Catholic Church over the centuries.

Some Protestants have also tried
to claim that there is no longer a need for miracles since the Gospel of
Christ has already been preached to all corners of the earth and since Christianity
has already been established. If this were true, then miracles would probably have
stopped occurring at some point during the first few centuries after Christ at periods when
Christianity was quite secured and the persecutions had ceased, but so far
were miracles from ceasing in those centuries and in all other centuries since the
time of Christ, that this theory is made illogical.

The Protestant reformers have also claimed they made no new church, but simply
polished and cleaned up the existing Church which had failed. Since they
removed key parts of the faith and Sacraments which were in the true Church in
Her early days, the result is not a reformed church but a new one. At the time
before the Church was "reformed" it contained the character of first
class miracles. We
ask all Protestant denominations; show us the character of first class miracles in your
church now as it was in the early days of the Church.

The Church has always been
accompanied by first class miracles, just as Her founder Jesus Christ was.
Therefore She is the true Church. No other society can claim these miracles which
the Catholic Church does, so glorious and so continual, unless God was with
it! "If
you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham." John 8:39.

God cannot be an author or confirmer of a lie,
therefore that which is continually confirmed by miracles cannot be a lie, but must be
truth. It is true that there are both false miracles and true miracles, and some
miracles that are debatable as to the presence of God's power (i.e. second
class). True miracles as sent from heaven will be apparent to
the elect. "By their fruits you shall know them." Matthew 7:16

There is scarcely any article of our religion which has
not been proved by miracles. Where the true miracles are, we know the true
Church is. God would never bear witness to a Church which did not have the
true faith, and was erring, deceiving and idolatrous. For this reason, and the
reason that Protestant Churches do not appear to have first class miracles, we
believe the Protestant Reformation was a departing of the true faith.

Why is it that first
class miracles are seen so continually throughout the history of the Catholic
Church, but not seen outside of it? We answer with this verse from Scripture,
"And he wrought not many miracles there, because of their unbelief" Matt
13:58

As with miracles, the Catholic Church at
all times has also had prophets, yet some Protestant reformers have also claimed
that prophecy has left the true Church along with miracles. Yet there have
scarcely been any Saints in the Catholic Church throughout the last 2000 years
who have not prophesied. We ask the Protestant denominations, if your church
be the true church, please show us the prophets from your church as the
Catholic Church can from any given point over the last 2000 years.

14. The true Church of Christ ought to always practice the perfection of Christian life:

Looking at the New Testament, it is filled with
teachings from Jesus on how to live the perfect Christian life. Here are many
examples of recommended
virtues direct from Scripture. In addition to these virtues, Jesus was entirely poor and
lived on alms as an example to us, and taught His Apostles to carry nothing
when they went to preach. He also taught us to be humble, meek and obedient even to
those of which we have no obligation. He left us examples of poverty,
chastity, and self-denial. Of what purpose were all these examples if they
were not to be put into practice?

Considering the examples Jesus has set for us,
consider the lives of the Saints who have imitated these virtues throughout
their entire lives and were able to perform miracles as Our Lord did.
Moreover, the Catholic Church as a whole has always put into practice these
virtues in every season for the love of God.

Consider the glory of so many Saints and other devout religious who gave
up all and risked their lives to travel to foreign countries and spread the
faith, without other expectation than of labors, miseries, and martyrdom, and
without other aim than the honor of God and the salvation of souls. Many of
these Saints have died for Christ as did St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Polycarp,
St. Agnes and St. Cecilia; they have won whole nations to Christ like St.
Patrick, St. Boniface, St. Ansgar, St. Methodius, and St. Francis Xavier; they
have founded religious orders of men and women that won countless souls to the
perfect following of heroic virtues such as St. Benedict, St. Bernard, St.
Francis, St. Dominic, St. Madeline Barat; they have given up all in life to
care for the sick, the poor and the imprisoned such as St. Camillus, St.
Vincent de Paul, and St. John of Matha; and they have defended the faith in
every part of the world as did St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St.
Ambrose, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Canisius. These are just a few examples.

Now compare these to the lives of the Protestant reformers and their
subsequent churches who condemned
the monastic discipline and gave it up altogether. And rather than imitate
the virtue of poverty, many aim to make the temporal goods of their church
theirs. The virtue of chastity
was condemnedand has been scarcely practiced
since. In addition, without a Pope to be obedient to and no need to consult
others on interpretation of Scripture, the virtue of obedience
was blurred. And with no need to confess sins, the borders of morality have
been blurred as well. Martyrdom is also scarcely
heard of in Protestant churches since the Reformation. Many ministers marry
when they did not in the early Church. ("He that is without a wife, is
solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God." 1
Cor 7:32). Why did the Protestant reformers oppose and stop practicing
these virtues in
direct opposition to the examples of Our Lord and early Church?

Here we present a quote from Calvin which clearly shows
Catholics in the early days of the Reformation already accusing Calvin and his churches with abandoning these virtues.

In summary, the Protestant reformers and most Protestant churches that came
afterward have abandoned these virtues of the perfect Christian life at the word
of the reformers; ordinary men. Yes, all of these virtues are not mandatory,
but we can see they are highly recommended in Scripture. Christ gave us these repeated
examples for a reason, and the Catholic Church and Her Saints and those in monasteries
have continually practiced these virtues to the fullest.

No matter which part of the world you may travel
to, you will notice that all Catholic Churches are called "Catholic". Now
consider the names of churches started by the Protestant reformers such as
Calvinist, Lutheran, Congregationalist, Protestant etc. Protestant churches
were not in existence before these names existed, and these names were not
created before Protestant churches were. They were not reformed, but all
created NEW and SEPARATE.

In addition many Protestants refer to their churches as "reformed", yet
the Lutherans, Anabaptists, Trinitarians and others also claim to use the term
"reformed". At the same time many Protestant denominations oppose that the
other uses the term because they all are in opposition on their beliefs. How
could all of these flavors of names, all in disagreement, be the true Church
of Christ?

Our Lord perfectly formed and sanctified His Church with His life. The
true Church, "the pillar and ground of truth", never needed reforming and to say
that the Church Our Lord left us was in need of reforming is to say that Our Lord
didn't establish His Church correctly or that the Holy Ghost failed to protect
it. Changing or reforming the Church which
Our Lord established is not called reform, it is called heresy.

16. The true Church must be ancient, the Protestant churches are
very new in comparison:

As Tertullian once said, "Error is a corruption of truth, truth must then
precede". Moses was before Abiron, Dathan and Core; the angels were before the
devils, Lucifer was good before he fell into eternal darkness etc. Consider the
verse, "They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had
been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us." 1 John 2:19. "Went
out from us" means they were within before they went out. The going out is
called heresy, the being within is fidelity. The true Church precedes heresy. In the
centuries immediately after Christ the Catholic Church was the only notable Christian
Church in existence, so what can we say for the Protestant denominations which
started appearing in the 16th century and later?

Calvin himself admits that in the first few centuries the Catholic Church had
not yet strayed from the Evangelic doctrine. Well the question for Protestants
then becomes, when was it that the true Church lost Her faith? At what time,
under what bishop, by what means, by what force, and by what steps did this
false religion take possession of Rome and the Church itself? What protest,
what troubles, and what lamentations did it cause? Was everyone asleep while
Rome was forming new doctrines and Sacraments? Is there not one single
historian to publish or leave behind any commentaries on such a great matter?
Why can't the Protestant reformers answer the above questions? Yet no one
questions when the Protestant reformation and churches began because every
related incident is well known, and the troubles, woes and violence that were
caused by them.

The true Church of Christ was started by Christ, the
Protestant churches were started in the 16th century and later by ordinary men. Some
Protestants may try and claim their church was around before the 16th century
and to them we ask, where was your Protestant church before the 16th century,
what was it called, was it called by the same name, and who in history claimed to be a part
of it? Do not try and say it existed but was invisible, for if it were not
seen and is not referenced in historical documents, who can say it existed?
And if you still claim your Protestant church existed before the Reformation,
Luther contradicts you, for he said he was quite alone when he started the
Reformation.

If one of the churches must be true, it is the Catholic Church since it
is clearly the only perpetually existing Christian Church since the time of
Christ. The new
Protestant churches therefore cannot be called true, but can only be called
heretical.

Looking at history one can gather a list of all heresies the Catholic
Church has ever fought and condemned, and noting where these heresies were
born and died, the Catholic Church still endures perpetually. To those
Protestants who would claim the Catholic Church did not exist for a time since
the time of Christ, we ask you to name the years in which She didn't exist.

In addition we ask, where were all of the
Protestant churches even a few hundred years before the Reformation? Please do
not attempt to say they were invisible as this cannot be proven. Our answer
is, the Protestant churches clearly did not exist before the Reformation and
therefore none can be the true Church of Christ.

If we look at any history book or book on the lives of the Saints,
we
see repeated missions by Saints in every country in every lifetime to overturn idolatry, paganism, and
convert others to the true Church, many at the expense of their own lives. Did Our Lord not ask His Apostles to do so?
"Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature" Mark
16:16.

And consider the massive number of those Saints who were willingly
martyred during these missions. "...and he that shall lose his life for me,
shall find it." Matthew 10:39. Yet why do we not see notable missions of Protestants throughout
the last 500 years dedicating and giving their lives to converting pagans and others as
Christ asked, and as has been seen in the Catholic Church?

19. The Protestant reformers have violated the authority of the Councils:

Consider the verse, "And the apostles and ancients assembled to
consider of this matter." Acts 15:6. From the earliest days of the Church
there have been many councils assembled by the bishops of the Church to help
in instructing the people and to provide for their salvation by resolving the
doubts and disagreements relating to Christian doctrine. The principal cause
why General Councils have ever been called together have always been to put
down heresy, schisms, and scandals. And who was originally given
this authority other than St. Peter who was given the keys of the Kingdom of
Heaven? "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And
whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven"
Matthew 16:19. He who has the authority for feeding the sheep has the
authority for calling the shepherds together to learn what pasturage and
waters are good for the flock.

Consider the verse later in the same chapter after the Apostles assembled
to consider the matter, "For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to
us." Acts 15:28. It is apparent by this verse that the Apostles themselves
believed their decisions at the council were overseen by the Holy Ghost.

Also consider the verse, "And if he will not hear the church, let him
be to thee as the heathen and publican." Matthew 18:17. When can we hear
the Church most distinctly than by the voice of general council, where the
heads of the Church come together to review and make decisions on
difficulties?

Consider the verse, "Again I say to you, that if two of you shall
consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall
be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. For where there are two or
three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew
18:19-20. This verse from Our Lord states that He is there to guide those
gathered together in His name. If Our Lord is there to guide a small group
gathered in His name to discuss any matter, how much more will He be there to
guide men during a General Council of the Church with hundreds of religious
present, to discuss a matter of faith and morals for the whole WORLD to follow?

Also consider the verse, "Take heed to yourselves, and to the
whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the
church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Acts 20:28.
How much more clear can this verse be than to say that there are bishops that
rule over the Church and that the Holy Ghost watches over
those Bishops? And when do they outwardly rule it? When
making decisions at General Councils.

What does the true Church use as its best weapon against heresy, than the
judgment of General Councils? Some Protestants may say Scripture is the best
weapon. And to this again we say Scripture cannot be used as a weapon against
heresy when its the inaccurate understanding of Scripture that is the cause of
the heresy. Without the authority of General Councils to help us understand
the meaning of Scripture and make final decisions on it (guided by the Holy
Ghost as we show above), the articles of our faith would be subject to never
ending appeals and revisions by those who have their own opinion of it.

Have you ever thought about why the Protestant
reformers chose to ignore
the authority of the General Councils of the early Church, even
though those
Councils were held in centuries when the Church was still supposedly the
true Church according to some of the Protestant reformers? It is clearly
because these General Councils have condemned several times over the many
beliefs that the Protestant reformers chose to revive in their new Protestant
churches. The Protestant reformers had no choice but to discard the decisions
of prior General Councils because their decisions conflicted with their beliefs.
There is no other word to describe this other than HERESY.

20. To those who do not believe in St. Peter as being authority of the Apostles:

Consider of all the Apostles, Our Lord chose to give a permanent new name
ONLY to St. Peter by saying, "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter"
Matthew 16:18. Note Our Lord did not give the other Apostles an additional
new names, only Peter, which signifies Peter's authority among the Apostles.
And if we look elsewhere in Scripture, other name changes have signified a
change of status, such as with Abraham in Genesis 17:5 and Jacob in Genesis
32:28.

Consider the verse, "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have
you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith
fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." Luke 22:31.
When Our Lord was about to establish the faith in His Church, He specifically
prayed for St. Peter as head. Scripture does not show Our Lord saying this to
any of the other Apostles. Is this not to place him as
responsible for all? And it is also equally clear that having prayed
specifically for St. Peter, the head of the others, it was so St. Peter might
not fail, who was to assist with supplying the others with the faith as well.

And when Our Lord says, "being once converted" that St. Peter
should "confirm thy brethren", does this not clearly state that St.
Peter is head of the others? Our Lord could not have given St. Peter the
command to confirm the Apostles without charging him to have care over them.

Also consider the verses, "When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith
to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He
saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed
my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith
to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my
lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?
Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou
me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I
love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep." John 21:15. Our Lord again,
only said these words to St. Peter and not to the other Apostles because St.
Peter alone was the authority among them. There is no confusion on whether Our
Lord was speaking to St. Peter alone here for the part "more than these"
shows Our Lord referring to the other Apostles, and only St. Peter was
grieved. And what does it mean to give someone charge of feeding the sheep but
to be their pastor, ruler and shepherd? In many places in Scripture to "feed"
and to "rule" are used interchangeably as well so there is no confusion here.

And when Our Lord said, "As the Father knoweth me, and I know the
Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep." John 10:15, Our Lord was not
referring to specific sheep, but ALL of His sheep. Some Protestants have
argued that Our Lord was referring to only specific "lambs" and "sheep" in
John 21, but this is illogical for if He was, why did He not specify the
specific lambs and sheep?

In addition, Our Lord first says, "Feed my lambs" twice, then "Feed
my sheep" once. What was the purpose of this? This was to clearly give St. Peter
charge not only over the people but the pastors and Apostles themselves for
the sheep nourish the lambs.

We also have proof of St. Peter's authority over the other Apostles based
on any time either all or part of the Apostles are referenced in Scripture,
St. Peter is always listed first, and in each of these instances, the other
Apostles' names that follow are not in any particular order.

We also note in numerous places in Scripture where there is occasion for
the Apostles to speak, St. Peter is known to speak for the group. "Then
Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him:
Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have
believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God." John 6:68.
Notice St. Peter speaks for the group and also says "and WE have believed",
speaking for all. Only one in authority speaks for a group.

Consider the verse, "And when there had been much disputing, Peter,
rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made
choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the
gospel, and believe" Acts 15:7. This verse clearly shows St.
Peter publicly exercising his authority over the other Apostles.

Some Protestants have been known to say that all the Apostles are equal,
with St. Peter having no authority over them. Looking at the verses just
referenced above, Our Lord clearly bestowed this
right on St. Peter for the good of the Church; to avoid schisms like we see in
the Protestant churches today!

To further expand on this point, in several other locations in Scripture
there are references to Peter and the other Apostles without naming them, such
as "Peter and they that were with him" (Luke 9:32) and "Simon, and
they that were with him, followed after him" (Mark 1:36) which clearly
indicate St. Peter as head. St. Peter is also named separately when
referencing all of the Apostles on several occasions such as "But go, tell
his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee" (Mark 16:7),
and "But Peter standing up with the eleven" (Acts 2:14), and "and
said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles" Acts 2:37. What more
can be said on this subject?

Here we see St. Peter being first to convert others to the Church; "They
therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that
day about three thousand souls" Acts 2:41

Here we see St. Peter performing the first
healing; "But Peter said: Silver and gold I have none; but what I have, I
give thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise, and walk. And
taking him by the right hand, he lifted him up, and forthwith his feet and
soles received strength" Acts 3:6-7

St. Peter was the first of the Apostles to raise the dead; "Peter
kneeling down prayed, and turning to the body, he said: Tabitha, arise. And
she opened her eyes; and seeing Peter, she sat up. And giving her his hand, he
lifted her up. And when he had called the saints and the widows, he presented
her alive." Acts 9:40,41. There is simply no doubt as to St. Peter's
authority over the other Apostles.

The Protestant reformers have also denied St. Peter was originally the
first head of the Church. How can anyone deny this when so many writings from
the first three centuries from renowned people contain references to St. Peter
being first head of the Church and head of the Apostles? For example we have
in the middle of the third century St. Cyprian saying that Cornelius has
succeeded to "the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter" (Ep 55:8; cf.
59:14). Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen claimed to decide the
controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the succession from
Peter (Cyprian, Ep. 75:17). In the first quarter of the 3rd century (about
220) Tertullian (De Pud. 21) mentions Callistus's claim that Peter's power to
forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him. About the same period,
Hippolytus in "Clement of Rome", 1:259) reckons Peter in the list of
Roman bishops. In addition writings from St. Jerome quote St. Peter as "Head
of the Church" and a writing from St. Hilary as "Happy foundation of the
Church" and many, many other examples not listed here. There is simply no
doubt as to St. Peter being the first Bishop of Rome.

21. To those who do not believe St. Peter was first Bishop of Rome and
that he had
successors that continued to lead the Church:

Our Lord clearly said, "Going therefore, teach ye all nations;
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;
and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."
Matthew 28:19-20. It is very clear from these verses that the Apostles in
their lifetime could not have taught ALL nations themselves, hence Our Lord
continued the SAME thought with the word "and", stating that He would be with
them to the end of the world. This can only refer to successors.

Also consider the verses, "And I will ask the
Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you
for ever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth
him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with
you, and shall be in you." John 14:16-17. Here Our Lord clearly states the
spirit of truth would "abide with them forever", which indicates their
successors as well. How were the Apostles to
fulfill Our Lord's words in the verses above without Apostolic successors?
It is clear Our Lord knew they could not finish teaching all nations in their
lifetime and that He was promising to be with their successors, guiding them
until the end of the world. How else can these verses be interpreted?

Furthermore we can immediately see that "teaching all nations" would not
be limited to the Apostles alone, for we see St. Paul in his Epistles sending
Bishop Titus and Bishop Timothy to finish the work he had begun in spreading
the faith. Furthermore, we see St. Paul instructing Bishop Titus to further
pass on this position to others; "For this cause I left thee in Crete, that
thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain
priests in every city, as I also appointed thee" Titus 1:5

As we mention elsewhere on this page, Our Lord clearly established St.
Peter as His vicar and administrator of the Church on earth. If Our Lord was
to establish a head of His Church back when the Apostles were alive and were
so steadfast and so strong, how much more today is the Church in need of a
head when there are so many weaknesses and infirmities in the members of the
Church?

As for St. Peter having successors, several ancient writings exist from
the first, second, and third centuries from St. Clement, St. Irenaeus,
Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Dorotheus, Optatus of Milevis,
St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon, ALL
which make reference to St. Peter being first Bishop of Rome who later handed
succession to St. Linus, St. Anacletus, and St. Clement. Some
of the writings about these three successors conflict with each other with respect to the order of these
successors, due to the fact that St. Clement was first offered to be successor
of St. Peter as Bishop, but he initially refused it until the deaths of St. Linus
and St. Anacletus, who took the role before him. Nevertheless all ancient
writings agree on these three as being successors of St. Peter. So why do the
Protestant reformers choose to ignore the writings of all antiquity?

The Protestant reformers have stated that the Catholic Church was still
pure during the first six or so centuries, and writings from countless Saints and
others during those same centuries all coincide in that St. Peter was first
Bishop of Rome, who later handed off that succession to other Bishops of Rome,
St. Linus, St. Anacletus, and St. Clement. So why do the Protestant reformers
choose to deny this? And to those who agree St. Peter had successors but that
those successors were not the Bishops of Rome, the early General Councils of
Nice, Constantinople, and Chalcedon contradict you, all indicating the Bishops of Rome were
successors.

In short, never in the early centuries of the Church were there bishops
who claimed they were head or superior over the rest other than the Bishop of
Rome. On what grounds then do the Protestant reformers have to challenge what
is so plentiful in ancient writings?

It is also interesting to note that some of the Protestant reformers chose
to deny St. Peter was ever in Rome, which is contrary to ancient writings. Calvin,
seeing this denial would oppose antiquity, instead chose to believe St. Peter was
"not long"
Bishop of Rome instead. It is interesting to see the immediate conflicts in opinion
that arose between the Protestant reformers before the reformation even got
off the ground. It is clear from ancient writings that St. Peter spent the
majority of his life in Rome, and some years in Judea and Antioch.

As for Protestant reformers challenging the term "pope" used for the
Bishop of Rome because it is not found in Scripture, it is simply a term
that means "chief father" or "grandfather". There are many other terms that
people use for the Bishop of Rome such as "His Holiness" and "Holy Father"
which are not in Scripture either, but they do not have to be as they are
simply a choice of terms. We see reference to the term pope in writings of St.
Jerome and the Council of Chalcedon (which was held while the Church was still
"pure" according to the Protestant reformers) and in other writings, but the
choice of the term is insignificant as it simply refers to the head Bishop of
Rome.

We all agree that the books of the Bible contain the inspired Word of God.
These books of the Bible also contain the many writings of St. Peter such as 1
St. Peter and 2 St. Peter, and we all believe them to be inspired and the
infallible Word of God. Why then do the Protestant reformers find it
so far above reason to also believe in St. Peter's infallibility acting as
head of the Church?

22. To those who do not believe in the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) and His authority over the Church:

First let us consider the term "rock" used so frequently in Scripture.
If we look throughout Scripture, "rock" has always been used to refer to Our
Lord and no one else. Our Lord by His excellence is
called the rock, because He is the foundation of the Church. This we all agree
on.

Now let us go back to the primary verses in Scripture which the Protestant
reformers disagree with the meaning of, which are, "And Jesus answering,
said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath
not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee:
That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates
of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18. Some Protestant
reformers choose to believe that Jesus was speaking to St. Peter, but starting
with "and upon this rock" they claim Our Lord was no longer referring
to St. Peter. Why would Our Lord bother to mention or refer to St. Peter in
the verse if He was about to speak about something else? We answer it is illogical to think Our Lord said the sentence
beginning with "Blessed are thou, Simon Bar-jona..." in order to say
nothing more than "thou are Peter" afterward, then suddenly change the
subject mid-sentence to refer to something else. The verse only makes sense when all is
referring to St. Peter.

Note that at that time, "Peter" was not the proper name of a man as we know it
today, but was only then appropriated to Simon Bar-jona by Jesus, and this
name was not given to anyone else. This forces the question, if the name Peter
was never used before this time, why would Our Lord suddenly give Simon the
name Peter? What could have been the meaning or purpose of this name change
other than implying Simon was equivalent to what "Peter" meant, which is rock?

Note
also that when Jesus first met St. Peter He said, "Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which
is interpreted Peter." John 1:42. Note here that the name Cephas also
translates to the word "rock", as does Peter. In other words Cephas and Peter
and rock all have the same meaning. So this is the same as saying, "thou
art rock; and upon this rock...". Now considering that the term
"rock" has always been attributed to Our Lord only throughout Scripture, what
do you think it signifies when Our Lord now calls St. Peter "rock"?

In addition we can clearly see the early Church
Fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries referring to St. Peter as the rock. For
example Tertullian writes, "Peter, who is the rock whereon the Church was to
be built, and who obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (De Praes., 22).
St. Cyprian also writes, "Peter, whom the Lord chose as first, and upon whom
He built His Church" (Epis. 71, Ad Quintum).

Next we see the verse immediately following "That thou art Peter; and
upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it" with the verse "And I will give to thee the keys of
the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be
bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be
loosed also in heaven." Matthew 16:19. Notice "thee" which is referring to
St. Peter alone. Also, verses 18 and 19 clearly go together and are a
continuous thought separated by "and", contrary to some of the Protestant reformers who would
illogically try to separate the verses under unrelated thoughts. And to
confirm, the belief as explained above has been maintained by the Catholic
Church from Her earliest days, and was confirmed at the Council of Chalcedon,
when even the Protestant reformers admit the Catholic Church was the
true
Church.

Also consider Our Lord, upon stating "upon this rock I build my church" is
comparing His Church to a building, and when He says He will build it on St.
Peter, He is referring to St. Peter being the Church's visible foundation here
on earth. This in
other words makes St. Peter head and superior of this Church. In other words,
Our Lord is the foundation, founder and builder, while St. Peter is only the
foundation from an administrative point of view. Our Lord is the Church's
master, while St. Peter only has management of it on earth.

It is true that
Scripture teaches us that there is no other foundation than Our Lord, though
it also teaches us that St. Peter is also a foundation, and further that the
Apostles are as well. It is incorrect and illogical to give up the belief that
Our Lord is foundation after we read that St. Peter is also foundation or that
the Apostles are. Rather all three beliefs remain, and instead we focus on the
degree in which they are each considered foundations.
Consider the verse from St. Paul, "Built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being
the chief corner stone." Ephesians 2:20. Here St. Paul clearly implies all
of the Apostles are foundations, with Our Lord having a notable difference
among them as corner stone of the foundation. The Apostles are also called
foundations but from a different perspective; simply because it is they that
lay the foundation of the Church everywhere by their preaching. Prophets are
mentioned in this verse for the same reason; we know they are not foundations
of the Church but we can refer to them as such in another sense because of their
doctrine.

The Catholic Church
has always believed that Our Lord is the only foundation of the Church and our
faith. No one has ever doubted this. Though some Protestants will ask why then
Catholics place Peter as foundation. And we answer that it is not WE that
placed him there, but Our Lord who did so in verses 18 and 19 as we mention
above. If anyone besides Our Lord had placed St. Peter as part of the
foundation of the Church, we and the rest of the Catholic Church would
protest. “For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid” 1
Corinthians 3:11. Our Lord simply approved this Himself so who are we to
deny it? Note that St. Peter
and the Apostles are not foundations BESIDE Our Lord, rather they are
foundations subordinate to Our Lord.

And to those Protestants who claim Our Lord also said the same to the
Apostles as to St. Peter; "And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it
shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it
shall be loosed also in heaven." we agree fully. But notice nowhere in
Scripture does Jesus say "And I will give to thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven" to anyone other than St. Peter.

Some Protestants also like to claim that the Catholic Church considers St.
Peter as a successor to Christ. They are incorrect. Rather St. Peter is a
vicar of Christ and should in no way be compared to Christ who is God. Just as
a King gives his son power to chastise, grant favors, and give gifts, his son
does not have the scepter, but only exercise of it. What the King's son does
will be valid, be that does not make him King. This relationship is similar to
that of Our Lord and St. Peter, and to that of St. Peter and the Apostles.

In summary, all of the Apostles are referred to as foundations of the
Church, but in authority and government, St. Peter precedes. St. Peter is
foundation, not founder of the whole Church, and he is a foundation, but
founded on another foundation, which is Our Lord. St. Peter is the foundation
(not founder) of the Church on earth, and is the administrator of faith, hope,
charity, the Sacraments, and of the Church on earth, but he is NOT the Lord of
them.

23. To those who do not recognize and do not have respect for the authority of
the Bishop of Rome (the Pope):

First, we see on many occasions in Scripture where there is occasion for
the Apostles to speak, St. Peter is known to speak for the group. "Then
Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him:
Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have
believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God." John 6:68.
Notice St. Peter speaks for the group and also says "and WE have believed",
speaking for all. Also consider the verses, "Jesus saith to them: But whom
do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son
of the living God." Matthew 16:15 and "And Jesus beholding, said to
them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible. Then
Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have
followed thee: what therefore shall we have?" Matthew 19:26. Also consider
at the election of St. Matthias it is St. Peter alone who speaks and
determines. There are many other examples in Scripture where St. Peter speaks
for the group of Apostles. Simply put, it is usual that the head should
speak for the whole body, and that what the head says is considered to be said
by all the rest. And it is this reason that St. Chrysostom and Origen have
called St. Peter "the mouth and crown of the Apostles". "Amen, amen I say to you,
he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me." John 13:20

When St. Peter was placed as foundation of the Church, and the Church was
certified that the gates of hell should not prevail against it, was it not
enough to say that St. Peter as foundation-stone could not be crushed with
infidelity or error, which is the principal gate of hell?

If the head shepherd can conduct his sheep into venomous pastures, the
flock is soon to be lost. So if the head shepherd, with no other visible head
available, can wander, who will set him straight? If there are no other head
shepherds to lead and the sheep are not capable of guiding, how can this head
shepherd guide his flock with a guarantee that hell will not prevail, unless
supernatural assistance exists?

Consider the great authority of Moses who sat and judged all the
differences among the people, and all difficulties which occurred in the
service of God. He appointed judges for issues of lower importance and the
greater doubts were reserved for him. God spoke through him for decisions of
that time and we all believe this. Why then do the Protestant reformers doubt
a similar situation with the head of the Catholic Church? Considering Moses,
is this situation THAT far above reason? Clearly it is not. If God had such providence
over the religion of the Jews to establish them a supreme judge in whose
sentence they were bound to consent to, there is no doubt that God provided
Christianity with a similar judge or pastor who has the same authority to
remove doubts and disagreements concerning the Scriptures.

Even Luther originally believed in the authority of the Pope as we can see
in his letter to Pope Leo X in 1518 where he actually presents six reasons for
proof of authority of the Holy See in Rome and states that Scripture supports
these reasons! Calvin himself originally believed in the authority of the Holy
See as well, stating the Ancients have honored and revered it. So on what
grounds do these Protestant reformers change from being Catholics, scrapping
their beliefs to start a whole new doctrine?

It is clear looking at the history of the Catholic Church that She does
not believe the Pope can err or mislead the faithful in regards to faith and
morals, which is based on Our Lord's words that the gates of hell will not
prevail against the church. Outside of decisions on faith and morals and in
all private decisions, the Pope is susceptible to mistakes just as anyone
else.
Simply put, everything a king says is not law and does not become law, but
only that which the king pronounces as king and legislator. So goes the same
with the Bishop of Rome; he can make errors outside the chair of Peter, as a
private individual by writings and bad example, but with pronouncements on faith
and morals in the chair of Peter, Our Lord's promise holds.

If all are bound by the Lord to believe the teachings of the Apostles and
their successors or be condemned, and those teachings could contain error,
what confusion would occur in Christendom with some parties considering one
teaching good, another bad, and others occupying themselves in controlling the
decisions of their superiors?

Consider the verse, "But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will
teach you all truth." John 16:13. How does the Holy Spirit teach, but
through the Pastors of the Church?

Consider St. Ignatius, early church Father and Bishop of Antioch, who sent
his Epistle to the Trallians around the year 107 AD. In it he writes, "For,
since ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ..." and in the same
paragraph writes, "It is therefore necessary that, as ye indeed do, so
without the bishop ye should do nothing, but should also be subject to the
presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ". This was in the earliest
time of the church shortly after the death of the last Apostle. Clearly St.
Ignatius here openly states that a Bishop should be obeyed as to Christ
himself, and that we should also be subject to the presbytery (priest) as to
the Apostles. How much more would this apply to the head bishop of the church
in Rome?

To Protestants who rather consider Luther an authority, how
can you look to a man who blindly excommunicates the Pope, and the Bishops,
and the entire Catholic Church in one written Bull while completely ignoring
all the facts as presented on this page? Such decisions can only be made out
of anger or frustration and not of intelligent facts. And what are we to think
about Luther
writing to the King of England claiming, "I will be the enemy of the papacy,
burnt I will be thy enemy." Are these the words of a Christian? Of an
authority? Consider the writings of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and other
reformers which are filled with vulgarities, calumnies, insults, detraction
and ridicule. Are these really the words of a Christian with a mission from
God to "reform" the Church? What does this all mean than that they have
nothing else to say and are unable to keep from ill-saying? No one sent from God
would do or say such things as these reformers have.

There are many beliefs put forward in the writings of the Protestant
reformers which are anti-Christian, illogical and contradict reason. One
example we give here is the theology put forth by Calvin, Zwingle and Beza
which in summary says that it is God's will that we sin, and because we cannot
avoid the will of God, we can not act otherwise, therefore we are not at fault
for any sin. Where in Scripture is this taught we ask? This blatantly
contradicts reason and Scripture.

Another belief put forth in the writings of Calvin mentions the Law of God
is impossible. What else does this imply other than Our Lord is a tyrant who
commands impossible things? If it is impossible, why is it commanded?

Even more absurd is the belief of Luther, Zwingle, and Calvin that the
whole Church may have erred for a thousand or so years in understanding the
Word of God, yet these reformers can each guarantee they understand it right! "If
the salt lose its savor, wherewith shall it be salted?" Matthew 5:13.
In other words if the Church, the guardian of truth, were to lose the truth,
by whom shall the truth be found? By Luther? By Calvin? We find it infinitely
more likely that the Protestant reformers erred rather than the entire Church.

Another absurdity we see with the Protestant reformers is their claim that
the Catholic Church has erred, and that all men can err, and then follow this
by preaching
their own interpretation of certain verses of the Scriptures, claiming it as
the Word of God. If everyone else has erred or is capable of erring, how can
the Protestant reformers be so audacious to claim they have not erred?

Another absurd belief of the Protestant reformers is that we must
interpret the Scriptures by the analogy of faith. This can only lead to
countless denominations with opposing views, and when any of these opposing
denominations presents their view of a verse in Scripture, Protestants admire
every interpretation given as though all are acceptable to God! This is
illogical, for as we mention above, if one denomination believes in the real
presence in the Holy
Eucharist while another believes the Eucharist is just a symbol, only one can
be correct. The real presence is either TRUE, or IDOLATRY, so believing one or
the other will decide whether or not we are saved. Where in Scripture did
Jesus say believing in two totally opposite views is acceptable? In addition, where
else in the world is such a belief accepted that many views are acceptable?
Surely mathematicians and scientists do not allow multiple beliefs for the same
situation and neither do we see such an illogical belief anywhere else. Yet
how illogical is it for the Protestant reformers to suddenly propose an "all beliefs are
acceptable" belief starting in the 16th century?

Considering we all believe in Jesus and what He taught us, is it not more
logical for Jesus to have left seven Sacraments for the justification and
sanctification of the sinner rather than leave just two, one of which serves
for nothing and the other for little? Would it not be more logical for Jesus to
have left the power of absolving in the Church then to have not left it at
all? Would it not be more logical for Our Lord to have left a visible Church,
which is universal, of striking aspect, and perpetual than to have left it
little, secret, scattered and liable to corruption?

Aside from the statements from the reformers
which contradict reason, we also see contradictory statements as well. To this we
simply state that someone sent by God to reform the Church could not and would
not teach in a contradictory manner such as we have seen Martin Luther do, for
how can we believe someone who teaches one thing, then teaches the opposite?
Our Lord and His Apostles taught truth, never contradiction.

These illogical beliefs and contradictory
teachings which we mention above are clearly either contrary to the
teachings of Christ, contradict reason or contradict themselves, and the Protestant reformers
propose many of these beliefs in their reformation as medicine for the Church?

25. To those who do not believe in the seven Sacraments as the Catholic Church
always has:

"Sacraments" are defined as outward signs instituted by Christ to give
grace. The Catholic Church has always believed in seven Sacraments, though
during the Protestant Reformation, the reformers originally differed among
themselves with regard to the number of Sacraments. If this Reformation were
truly from God, why would there be disagreements on the number Sacraments from
the start? In any case, after the Reformation most reformed churches discarded
five of the seven Sacraments, despite the fact that the early Church Fathers
continually refer to seven Sacraments. The Council of Trent also reconfirmed seven. Below we quickly review
the seven Sacraments, and their sources in Scripture. On what grounds and on what
authority were the five removed by the reformers?

Sacraments in General

While the Catholic Church has always held to the consecratory words of
each Sacrament, the Protestant reformers have written that these consecrating
words are charms, and that the true form of the Sacraments is preaching. We
ask the Protestant reformers where their Scriptural support is for such a
reformation? Verses such as "That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the
laver of water in the word of life" Ephesians 5:26 and "Going
therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" Matthew 28:19 each clearly prove that
preaching is not the true form of the Sacraments. And also the verses "He
that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved" Matthew 16:16 and "For
Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" 1 Corinthians 1:17
clearly show preaching and the Sacrament of Baptism are two different things, so why do some
of the Protestant reformers combine them?

The Protestant reformers have also claimed that providing the exterior
action of Baptism or the Eucharist, even with no intention or even joking, the
Sacrament still occurs and is valid. Again we have nothing in Scripture to
vouch for such a belief and this belief has been condemned by multiple
Councils such as that of Florence and Trent. In summary, if a man were talking
in his sleep or drunk and said the words of a Sacrament, the meaning and
intention are not there, and no Sacrament has been administered, just as all
that a judge says does not become law just because it came from his mouth, he
has to make the intention of making it law.

Sacrament of Baptism

Consider the verse, "But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of
your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38.
Though most Protestants claim to believe in the Sacrament of Baptism, many
disagree on the details of the Sacrament. In the above verse, we clearly see
our sins are forgiven at time of the Sacrament of Baptism, and that we receive
the Holy Ghost through the Sacrament.

In addition the Protestant reformers violate the Councils, the Popes and the
early Church Fathers regarding this Sacrament who all believed in Baptism of children. By what authority did the
Protestant reformers change this doctrine?

Sacrament of Penance

In many verses in the New Testament, we see Our
Lord forgiving sins such as, "And he said to her: Thy sins are forgiven
thee." Luke 7:48 and "Son, thy sins are forgiven thee." Mark 2:5.

Now consider the verses, "He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you.
As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he
breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins
you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain,
they are retained." John 20:21-23. Here Our Lord clearly says he is
sending the Apostles and giving them the same right to forgive sins all in the
same phrase. For what reasons should the Apostles be sent to forgive or retain
sin if there is no need for us to confess?

Consider the verses, "If we say that we have
no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our
sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from
all iniquity." 1 John 1:8-9. This clearly states we should confess our
sins.

Of what purpose are all the references in
Scripture to confession of sins, forgiveness of sins, remission of sins,
repentance of sins, doing penance, and "blotting out" sin if they are of no
concern to our salvation, and if we are not to worry about cleansing ourselves
of them?

Early writings of the church are filled with
references to the Sacrament of Penance. By what authority did the Protestant reformers change
this doctrine which had always been believed to be a Sacrament before the
Reformation?

Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist (Real Presence)

Regarding the Holy Eucharist, consider these verses and comments that
follow:

"And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke:
and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body"
Matthew 26:26. Here Jesus clearly states that the bread IS His body, not a
symbol of it. Nothing symbolic is spoken of here.

"And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying:
This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me"
Luke 22:19. Here Jesus tells us to perform this same process as He.

"If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread
that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world" John 6:52. Here
Jesus very clearly states that the bread IS His flesh, He does not say it is a
symbol of it. Yes, this is a mystery and difficult to understand, we agree,
but we must believe in the words of Our Lord. And if Our Lord was referring to a symbol only, why would
this symbolic-only bread
have any special characteristics such as allowing us to "live forever"?

"The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of
the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of
the body of the Lord?" 1 Corinthians 10:16. This clearly shows the
Apostles belief in the bread and body of Our Lord being the same. So why do
the Protestant reformers choose to oppose the Apostles regarding this?

"And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and
gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body." Mark 14:22. This says the same as above.

"I am the bread of life" John 6:48. This says the same as above.

"This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it,
he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven" John
6:50-51. Here Jesus says HE is the bread, and the bread comes down from heaven (which makes it
much more than symbolic), and says anyone who eats it will not die
(spiritually that is).

"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh
of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He
that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will
raise him up in the last day." John 6:54-55. Here Our Lord repeats the
same as above. How else can this be interpreted?

"For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my
flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him" John 6:56-57.
Again we have an unmistakable equation of Our Lord's flesh and bread, and Our
Lord's blood and the wine. Combine this with the meanings of the verses above,
and we clearly have something extremely special, something infinitely more
special than something only symbolic.

"After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him."
John 6:67. Clearly some assumed Our Lord was referring to cannibalism here. Had
Our Lord been referring to a symbolic relation between bread and body, and
blood and wine, He certainly would have clarified that he was referring to a
symbolic representation when the others tried
to leave, but He did not. Elsewhere in Scripture Our Lord was always certain
to clarify His meaning on key doctrines when he sensed others were confused.
How much more would Our Lord have gone out of His way to clarify in this
situation upon seeing some of His disciples leaving to follow him no more?
Rather, Our Lord clearly meant what He said and did not need to clarify; He mentioned we would be
eating His body and drinking His blood (obviously spiritually present after
being properly
consecrated). Yes, this is a mystery and hard to understand, but this is the
only logical meaning behind Our Lord's words, so we must accept them.

The verses above are the words of Our Lord, and the Catholic Church did
not create them or their meaning. The words are what they are and the
Protestant reformers had no right to oppose all antiquity and create the
"symbolic" belief for the Eucharist, when this is clearly not stated in
Scripture. The belief in the real presence in the Holy Eucharist was universal
among Christians up until the Protestant reformation, so again this is an
example of new doctrine started by the Protestant reformers.

Let us also consider these verses, "For as
often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the
death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or
drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of
the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that
bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily,
eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord."
1 Corinthians 11:26-29. Here we ask Protestants who believe the bread and
wine only to be symbols of Our Lord's body and blood, for what purpose does
Our Lord say "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and
drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord" if
these are only symbols? How does one eat a symbol "unworthily"? And does it
make sense that we would bring judgment on ourselves by eating and drinking
only a symbol?

Some Protestants choose not to believe in the
real presence since this doctrine "sounds silly" or because they cannot
comprehend it. Is the doctrine of the real presence a mystery? Absolutely! And
if it is a mystery, we surely cannot fully comprehend it, rather we believe it
because Our Lord told us it was so. We cannot choose not to believe a doctrine
Our Lord teaches us simply because we cannot fully comprehend it. There are
other doctrines we cannot fully understand either such as God's omnipresence.
Do we not believe this because we cannot fully comprehend it? Of course not.
We cannot expect to fully understand the actions or doctrines of an
all-powerful God, and our limited understanding of them does not limit what
God can do.

If we look at ancient writings from the
Christian Church we also see repeated mention of the real presence in the
Eucharist going back to the earliest centuries of the Church. Many writings
from prominent members of the Church which teach of the real presence include
writings of St. Cyprian in the 3rd century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th
century, St. Ambrose in the 4th century, St. John Damascene in the 8th
century, and St. Paschasius in the 9th century just to give a few examples.
And during those early centuries we do not see anyone contesting this belief
so it remains clear that the early Christian Church openly believed in the
real presence in the Eucharist. If the early Church believed in the real
presence, on what grounds did the Protestant reformers discard this belief?

As proof for the validity of the real presence in the Holy Eucharist,
there are many examples of Eucharistic miracles in the Catholic Church over
the last 2000 years with proof remaining for all to see. Many, many occurrences of blood suddenly dripping from the Holy
Eucharist, and Holy Eucharists mysteriously changing to flesh, and wine later
appearing as blood, have occurred repeatedly in the Catholic Church throughout
the last 20 centuries. And it is important to note that these miracles are not seen in
non-Catholic churches. Each of
these instances have been investigated thoroughly by the Catholic Church and
non-church members and have been determined as true first class miracles by
the Catholic Church, and the actual hosts, flesh and blood involved have been
on display all over Europe for the public to see for hundreds of years. They
are still on display and available for anyone to see to this day!

Why do Protestants have little to say about these repeated Eucharistic
miracles in the Catholic Church? Does this lack of interest have anything to do with the fact
that these miracles do not occur in their churches? Would the Protestants dare
claim these miracles that span 2000 years and occur in all parts of the world
are all frauds? What is the likelihood of an untold secret among Catholics for
2000 years to fabricate these Eucharistic miracles? No one is asking the
Church to produce these miracles and they are not in demand by anyone, so why
would the Church spend so much of Her time fabricating them? What would the
Church have to prove by doing so?

In addition, many of these Eucharistic miracles have occurred in the presence of
the greatest Saints of the Church, Saints who dedicated their lives to
imitating Christ, and so by their very nature do not lie. Would you have the
audacity to say these Saints have all lied about these Eucharistic miracles for 20 centuries? The Catholic Church has no control over these incidents,
they simply happen. Why do Protestant churches not experience such miracles
repeatedly each century as the Catholic Church does? Our answer is in this
verse alone: "These signs shall
follow them that believe." Mark 16:17-18

Sacrament of Marriage

Consider the verse, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and
mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This
is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church" Ephesians 5:31.
St. Paul himself refers to marriage as a Sacrament.

Consider the verses, "Because the husband is the head of the wife, as
Christ is the head of the church. He is the savior of his body. Therefore as
the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in
all things." Ephesians 5:23-24. Scripture clearly shows marriage is a very
special Sacrament as it compares the husband to Christ himself!

Consider the verses, "But from the beginning of the creation, God made
them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother;
and shall cleave to his wife. And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore
now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together,
let not man put asunder. And in the house again his disciples asked him
concerning the same thing. And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away
his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her." Mark 10:6-9. These verses show that the reason
God made men and women was for marriage. This has always been believed to be a
Sacrament. Why did the reformers discard it after 1400+ years?

Regarding divorce, Scripture also repeats
often that divorce is forbidden, just like we cannot be "unbaptized", we
cannot be "unmarried". Regarding divorce, we can refer to the verse directly
above, and also the following verses: "Every one that putteth away his
wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her
that is put away from her husband, commmitteth adultery" Luke 16:18. And
also, "But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that
the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain
unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away
his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. And finally, "For the woman that
hath an husband, whilst her husband liveth is bound to the law. But if her
husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. Therefore,
whilst her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress, if she be with
another man: but if her husband be dead, she is delivered from the law of
her husband; so that she is not an adulteress, if she be with another man."
Romans 7:2-3

Sacrament of Confirmation

Consider the verses, "Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had
heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and
John. Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the
Holy Ghost. For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them,
and they received the Holy Ghost." Acts 8:14-17. Confirmation also has
always been believed to be a Sacrament by the early Church. On what grounds
was it discarded?

Another verse, "And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy
Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied." Acts 19:6.
Here we have another example of the Sacrament of Confirmation as above. And
since the Apostles chose successors to continue their same work of continuing
the church (such as with Bishop Titus and Bishop Timothy), why would this
practice be omitted?

Sacrament of Holy Orders

We see St. Paul discussing ordination of priests in churches in his
Epistles to Titus and Timothy, such as "For this cause I left thee in
Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and
shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee" Titus 1:5.
Is an ordination of a priest not an outward sign instituted to give grace?

And we see in Acts 14:22; "And when they had ordained to them priests
in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord,
in whom they believed". Again we have reference to ordination of priests
in the Church. Why would bestowing such a special privilege as priestly
ordination be suddenly discarded as a Sacrament by the reformers?

Consider the verse, "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock,
wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God,
which he hath purchased with his own blood." Acts 20:28. This verse is
self explanatory!

Consider the verse, "For every high priest taken from among men, is
ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up
gifts and sacrifices for sins." Hebrews 5:1. And three verses later
we also see the verse, "Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but
he that is called by God, as Aaron was." Hebrews 5:4. This clearly implies
one must be divinely commissioned as a successor of the Apostles in order to
preach the Gospel authoritatively. In addition, this verse clearly implies
this as well, "How shall they preach unless they be sent"? Romans 10:15

Consider, "Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee
by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood." 1 Timothy 4:14

Also Consider, "For which cause I admonish
thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition
of my hands." 2 Timothy 1:6.

Furthermore, consider the verses, "Then the
twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not reason
that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren,
look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and
wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves
continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying was
liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and
of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and
Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the
apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them. And the word of the Lord
increased; and the number of the disciples was multiplied in Jerusalem
exceedingly: a great multitude also of the priests obeyed the faith." Acts
6:3-7. Are these verses not an example of the twelve Apostles applying the
Sacrament of Holy Orders to others?

Here is another example as well, "Then they,
fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away. So
they being sent by the Holy Ghost, went to Seleucia: and from thence they
sailed to Cyprus." Acts 13:3-4. Here we clearly see imposition of the
priesthood (Holy Orders) and it clearly being understood that they that
received it were considered to be sent by the Holy Ghost.

Consider the verse, "Impose not hands lightly
upon any man, neither be partaker of other men's sins. Keep thyself chaste." 1
Timothy 5:22. Here we clearly see St. Paul instructing Timothy on the
seriousness of Holy Orders.

Sacrament of Extreme Unction

Consider the verses, "Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the
priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in
the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the
Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him"
James 5:14-15. These verses clearly explain the Sacrament of Extreme
Unction which the Catholic Church has always accepted as a Sacrament, and
which the Protestant reformers chose to discard. On what grounds would they
have discarded such clearly understandable Words of God?

Also consider the verse, "And they cast out many devils, and anointed
with oil many that were sick, and healed them." Mark 6:13. Here is another
example of the same Sacrament followed to anoint the sick. Why would this
suddenly no longer be a Sacrament after 1400+ years?

26. To those who do not believe in Purgatory or in praying for the faithful
departed:

Before we discuss details on the truth of Purgatory, let us start by
mentioning that in Luther's early writings he originally believed in the truth
of Purgatory, but later he retracted this belief. If God was guiding him in
leading this supposed reform of the Church, why does Luther later change his
mind on such an important doctrine that the Catholic Church has always
believed since Her earliest years? Never will you see the true Church or it's
members suddenly change or create new doctrine as Luther has!

Consider the verse, "Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of
the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire
shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which
he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he
shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." 1
Corinthians 3:13-15. When the Apostle says "he shall be saved", he
excludes the fire of hell in which no one can be saved. By saying he shall be
saved "as by fire" can only refer to a purgation as in Purgatory. It is
evident from these verses that many who will gain possession of the Kingdom of
God will pass through fire. This clearly is not hell fire, so it will
therefore be the temporary fire of Purgatory.

Consider the verse, "Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from
thence till thou repay the last farthing." Matthew 5:26. And also "There
shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or
maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb."
Apocalypse 21:27. These verses clearly state we must be perfect before we
enter the Kingdom of Heaven. If we die and still have debt remaining for minor
sins we have committed, how are we to make up for these unless Purgatory
exists? And notice the word farthing, which refers to the smallest money one
can owe (not enough to earn us damnation, but too much to allow us to enter
heaven).

Next we have the verse, "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought
to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." 2 Machabees 12:46.
How can one be loosed from their sins after their death if in heaven there is
no one with sin, and if hell is eternal? There is clearly a place for the
remission of sins after death. This verse is very evident as to its
meaning. To avoid this, the Protestant reformers removed this entire book from the
Scriptures, holding it as Apocryphal. For what reason was this book removed other
than the fact the Protestant reformers had no answers for its contents? This book
of Machabees has been held as authentic and sacred by the Third Council of
Carthage back in the fourth century when according to the Protestant
reformers, the Church was still pure. So to answer this verse by denying the
authority of the entire book is to deny the authority of antiquity.

Consider the verse, "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son
of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy
Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world
to come." Matthew 12:32. For Our Lord to say a particular sin cannot be
forgiven "in this world, nor in the world to come" it implies that
there may be some remission of other sins in this world or the one to come.
Then where can a sin be forgiven outside of this world other than a place like
Purgatory?

Consider the verse, "But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his
brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say,
Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Matthew 5:22. Notice it is
only the third sort of offense is punished with hell. What if one dies with
other types of offenses mentioned? Clearly the judgment of God after this life
consists of something other than hell. This is the belief of the Ancient
Fathers.

Consider the verses, "That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth" Phillipians 2:10
and "And no man was able, neither in heaven, nor on earth, nor under the
earth, to open the book, nor to look on it" Apocalypse 5:3 and "And
every creature, which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth..."
Apocalypse 5:13. Where could these references to "under the earth"
refer to other than Purgatory? They certainly do not refer to hell.

Consider all of the early Councils of the Church that have approved of
prayers for the departed, and also Purgatory such as the Third Council of
Carthage, Fourth Council of Carthage, Council of Braga, Council of Chalons,
Council of Orleans and Council of Worms and many others afterward. We also
have writings of the early Church Fathers such as Tertullian, St. Ambrose, St.
Augustine, and St. John Chrysostom which all openly speak of praying for the
departed. We
have further writings from St. Clement, St. Denis, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St.
Gregory, and countless others who write of and believe in Purgatory and prayer
for the departed. The Protestant reformers have chosen to oppose all of
antiquity and throw out these beliefs.

Consider these other passages from the Old Testament which have always
been believed by the true Church to refer to a place of purgation:

We have passed through fire and water, and thou hast brought us out
into a refreshment. Psalms 65:12

If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Sion, and
shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the
spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning. Isaias 4:4. The phrase
"wash away the filth" is to be understood of the purgation necessary.

I will bear the wrath of the Lord, because I have sinned against him;
until he judge my cause and execute judgment for me: he will bring me forth
into the light, I shall behold his justice. Micheas 7:9. Saying "I
will sit darkness" and "I will bear the wrath of the Lord" and "until
he judge my cause" cannot be understood of pain so properly as that of
Purgatory.

Thou also by the blood of thy testament hast sent forth thy prisoners
out of the pit, wherein is no water. Zacharias 9:11. The pit has always
been understood by the Church to be Purgatory.

And he shall sit refining and cleansing the silver, and he shall
purify the sons of Levi, and shall refine them as gold, and as silver, and
they shall offer sacrifices to the Lord in justice. Malachias 3:3. This
has also always been understood to mean a purgation.

27. To those who do not
recognize or have any devotion to the Blessed Virgin:

Why did the Protestant
reformers choose to discard devotion and veneration of the Blessed Virgin
suddenly when this was always the practice of Christians in earlier centuries?
And why is She ignored and even disliked by most Protestant denominations, contrary
to Scripture and the early Christian Church? Even Luther himself admitted it
is possible to honor the Saints
and the Virgin Mary.

First let us consider
the following verses from Scripture:"Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from
henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty,
hath done great things to me; and holy is his name." Luke 1:48
And also the verse, "And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full
of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." Luke 1:28

Here we have the written Word of God which states all generations will call
the Blessed Virgin "blessed", and also an angel from heaven referring to the
Blessed Virgin as "blessed" among all women as well. Note the term "blessed"
refers that which is holy, heavenly, favored with blessings, or highly
favored.

Now consider the Blessed
Virgin, a human being, was chosen to bear in Her womb God incarnate, a God who
created all things and is infinitely perfect. "And therefore also the Holy
which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Luke 1:35. We know God would not have chosen a sinful person to
bear an infinitely perfect, divine being like Jesus Christ. This fact alone
makes her "blessed" without even having to read it elsewhere in Scripture.
Though the fact that she is considered "blessed" does NOT make her divine, and
does NOT make Her comparable in any way to Our Lord, since only Our Lord is
the one who is divine. The Blessed Virgin was still a human being like you or
I, but obviously a specially chosen one at that.

Worship or adoration of the
Blessed Virgin has always been FORBIDDEN by the Catholic Church, since She is
NOT divine and since only the Holy Trinity may be adored. For proof of this,
we can look in the Catholic Encyclopedia under "Devotion to Blessed Virgin
Mary" at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15459a.htm.
Instead, rather because Scripture tells us she is "blessed", the Catholic
Church has always only allowed DEVOTION or VENERATION to Her, or simply put, a
reverence and devoutness towards Her.

We see many early Christian
writings which spoke frequently of the Blessed Virgin, a sign of their
veneration to Her. The Early Church Fathers venerated the Blessed Virgin and
were profoundly devoted to Her as Catholics are today. St. Irenaeus (115 -
200), Bishop of Lyons and Father of the Church refers to the Blessed Virgin as
"our most eminent advocate". St. Ignatius of Antioch (50-117) wrote to the
Ephesians (c. 18-19) about mysteries of Our Lord's life being connected to
those of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Elsewhere she is referred to more than once
as the "antithesis of Eve". St. Justin and Tertullian both wrote about Her
before the end of the 2nd century. She was included in the writings of
countless Saints, always being referred to with the highest veneration, yet
never worshipped. She was defended in the Council of Ephesus in 431 and the
Council of Trent makes mention of Her under Justification. Pope Pius
IX made pronouncements about Her as well among so many other writings. We also
have miracles such as those repeated healings at Lourdes which are directly
associated with Her. Simply put, if the Word of God refers to someone as
Blessed or Holy, though worship is inappropriate, reverence and devoutness are
quite applicable.

Why do so many make a
devotion to the Blessed Virgin? Simply to ask Her intercession and prayers as
we see done elsewhere in Scripture. For example:

"For the rest, brethren, pray for us, that the word of God may run, and may
be glorified, even as among you; And that we may be delivered from importunate
and evil men; for all men have not faith." 2 Thes 3:1

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by
the charity of the Holy Ghost, that you help me in your prayers for me to God"
Rom 15:30

"Praying withal for us also, that God may open unto us a door of speech to
speak the mystery of Christ (for which also I am bound)" Colossians 4:3

"And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden
censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the
prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of
God. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up
before God from the hand of the angel." Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:3-4

As Christians, we believe in the Word of God found in Scripture, which refers
to the Blessed Virgin as being called "Blessed for all generations". Why
ignore or take a dislike to a creature God himself refers to as "Blessed"?

Also note, Jesus loved His
earthly mother above all earthly creatures and loves Her exceedingly to this
day. As Christians we strive to imitate Christ, so why ignore or even take a
dislike to the Blessed Virgin in direct opposition to Jesus? Is she to be
disliked for some reason? If so, why?

If Jesus and the Blessed
Virgin Mary were still on earth, would Jesus encourage us to ignore and even
dislike His Mother as so many Protestant denominations openly do?

Jesus could have appeared on
earth in any fashion of His choosing, but instead He chose to come through the
Blessed Virgin to us. Why did He choose to come through the Blessed Virgin if
there were not a reason? The reason is obvious; He came to us through Her, now
God allows us to go through Her to Him in our prayers and requests.

28.
To those who do not
believe in veneration of statues,
pictures, crucifixes and other images of Christianity

We must first note here that
it can readily be seen from the very beginning that Christians adorned their
catacombs with paintings of Christ, of the Saints, and of scenes from the
Bible, including parts of Our Lord’s Passion such as His crowning.

Next we note many ancient
writings which reference pictures and statues commonly used by Christians in
the early centuries of the Church including St. Ambrose (d. 397) and St.
Augustine (d. 430) each referring several times to pictures of our Lord and
the saints in churches, St. Jerome (d. 420) also writes of pictures of the
Apostles as well-known ornaments of churches, Gregory of Tours (d. 594) says
that a Frankish woman, who built a church of St. Stephen, showed the artists
who painted its walls how they should represent the Saints out of a book. St.
Nilus in the fifth century blames a friend for wishing to decorate a church
with profane ornaments, and exhorts him to replace these by scenes from
Scripture. St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) was also a great a defender of
icons in the Church. These are just a few examples.

The conclusion here is that
the principle of adorning chapels and churches with pictures dates from the
very earliest Christian times. Centuries before the Iconoclast troubles they
were in use throughout Christendom. So also all the old Christian Churches in
East and West used holy pictures constantly.

Next we note the Council of Nicaea II (787)
approved of veneration of images, and forbade adoration of them. The Catholic
Church and Orthodox churches have always followed decisions of this Council
since.

As additional proof that
Catholics do not "worship" or idolize such images, we can clearly see in the
document "Veneration of Images" in the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm)
that the Catholic Church has always allowed ONLY veneration but never
worship of pictures, statues and the like.

Some non-Catholics may still
somehow insist that veneration of a picture or statue is somehow idolatry or
superstition regardless of the proof we provide above. To this we ask, do you
have pictures of loved ones around your home as reminders of them? If so, do
you love the actual pictures and frames they are in, or do you love who the
pictures remind you of? And if you kneel to read a prayer from a prayer book,
are you worshipping the prayer book or just using it as an aid? I think we all
know the answers to these questions.

Now let us consider the
definition of prayer from "A Catholic Dictionary" (1958) which states that
prayer is the "raising of our mind and heart to God”. Hence anything that
raises our thoughts heavenward is prayerful.

Let us now consider the
average Christian home today. Many do not have a single symbol of Christianity
in any room, but rather are filled with modern art that appeal to sensual
rather than the spiritual side of our nature. The Catholic home (especially
the devout Catholic home) will be filled with pictures and/or statues of Our
Lord, or crucifixes instead of modern art. The result? Looking around a home
such as this will constantly "raise the mind and heart to God" for everyone in
the family, which is what prayer does. This is clearly not worship but rather
an aid. While a family who owns a home filled with modern art will always be
thinking on "earthly" levels and will scarcely give Our Lord a second thought
throughout the day. Scripture tells us to pray often, so a prayerful home is
much better than a non-prayerful home.

In summary, statues,
pictures and the like are a constant inspiration to pious thoughts. They are
not ornaments or objects of idolatry or superstition, but prayer aids. Even a
short look is an effective means of prayer! Not to have any pictures or
statues is a denial that Jesus is master of our households. We all know what
Our Lord thought of those who refused to publicly acknowledge Him. No amount
of prayer aids is too many, and makes the task of raising our children in the
love of God that much easier.

29.
To those who feel sin
does not affect your salvation, or believe that by simply choosing Jesus as your
"personal
savior", you have been saved regardless:

First consider the verse, "Not every one that
saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that
doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom
of heaven." Matthew 7:21. Here we see we must DO, not just believe!

Consider the verses, "And behold one came and
said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life
everlasting? Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good,
God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matthew
19:16-17. Why would Our Lord command us to keep the commandments in order
to have life everlasting if we are already supposedly saved by choosing Him as
our personal savior?

Also consider the verses, "For if we sin
willfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no
sacrifice for sins, but a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the
rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries." Heb 10:26-27 (St. Paul).
Again these verses clearly show sin directly effects our salvation.

Consider the verse, "Wherefore, my dearly
beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more
now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation." Phil
2:12 (St. Paul). If we must work out our salvation with fear and
trembling, this is incompatible with the belief that we are "saved" by
simply choosing Our Lord as our personal Savior.

Consider the verse, "But Peter said to them:
Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for
the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
Acts 2:38. Of what purpose would St. Peter tell us to do penance for the
remission of our sins if we are simply saved and have no need to worry about
sin?

Consider the verse, "Lest again, when I come,
God humble me among you: and I mourn many of them that sinned before, and have
not done penance for the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness,
that they have committed." 2 Cor 12:21. For what purpose would St. Paul
say penance is necessary to make up for our sins if we are simply saved?

Consider the verse, "And God indeed having
winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should
every where do penance." Acts 17:30. Why does Scripture tell us to do
penance if we are already saved by accepting Christ?

And the verses, "Do penance therefore for
this thy wickedness; and pray to God, that perhaps this thought of thy heart
may be forgiven thee." Acts 8:22 and "No, I say to you: but unless you
shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish." Luke 13:3 and "And
going forth they preached that men should do penance." Mark 6:12. Clearly
these verses indicate we are commanded to do more than just believe for our
salvation, we must do penance.

And the verse, "Confess therefore your sins
one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the
continual prayer of a just man availeth much." James 5:16. Here we see
even St. James knows being saved is not a given!

Of what purpose are all the references in
Scripture to confession of sins, forgiveness of sins, remission of sins,
repentance of sins, doing penance, and "blotting out" sin if they are of no
concern to our salvation, and if we are not to worry about cleansing ourselves
of them?

Consider the verse, "For we must all
be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive
the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be good
or evil." 2 Corinthians 5:10. This clearly shows that what we do in life
effects how we will be judged. Christ merited our salvation by His death on
the cross, but it is NOT guaranteed and CAN be lost if we do not properly
accept it and do what Our Lord instructed as mentioned above.

Lastly, if we look at the writings of the early
Church Fathers, they all refer to terms such as "attaining", "securing" and
"affecting" our salvation. Clearly the early Christian Church openly believed
and taught this in accordance with points directly above.

It is clear that Jesus did not have to do and say all that He
did in Scripture; He did it specifically for our instruction. What
better example do we have from Our Lord in persevering and repeating
our prayers than in this verse? "And leaving them, he went again:
and he prayed the third time, saying the selfsame word" Matt 26:44

Also consider this verse from Scripture, which is self
explanatory: "Know ye that the Lord will hear your prayers, if you
continue with perseverance in fastings and prayers in the sight of
the Lord" Judith 4:11

31.New! Examples of writings from
the early Church Fathers (the first Christians in the early centuries after the
Apostles) showing they were Catholic, not Protestant:

The following quotes are taken from "Fathers in the Faith", the Complete 37
Volume Collection of the Early Church Fathers.References to the Virgin Mary

EARLY LITURGIES--THE DIVINE LITURGY OF JAMES,
THE HOLY APOSTLE AND BROTHER OF THE LORD (1st century): "Commemorating our
all-holy, pure, most glorious, blessed Lady, the God-Mother and Ever-Virgin
Mary, and all the saints...."

THE LITURGY OF THE BLESSED APOSTLES. COMPOSED
BY ST. ADAEUS AND ST. MARIS (3rd century?): "We offer to Thee this
reasonable service for those who have fallen asleep in faith, ...
patriarchs, apostles, evangelists, martyrs, ... and every just one made
perfect in the faith: especially our all-holy, undefiled, most blessed Lady,
Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary," etc. But she, they tell us, was assumed
into glory, like Christ Himself, and reigns with Him as "Queen of Angels,"
etc."

THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS,
CONCERNING THE PASSING OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY (2nd century): "And when
the Lord's day came, at the third hour, just as the Holy Spirit descended
upon the apostles in a cloud, so Christ descended with a multitude of
angels, and received the soul of His beloved mother. For there was such
splendour and perfume of sweetness, and angels singing the songs of songs,
where the Lord says, As a lily among thorns, so is my love among the
daughters, that all who were there present fell on their faces, as the
apostles fell when Christ transfigured Himself before them on Mount Thabor,
and for a whole hour and a half no one was able to rise. But when the light
went away, and at the same time with the light itself, the soul of the
blessed virgin Mary was taken up into heaven with psalms, and hymns, and
songs of songs. And as the cloud went up the whole earth shook, and in one
moment all the inhabitants of Jerusalem openly saw the departure of St.
Mary.....Then the apostles with great honour laid the body in the tomb,
weeping and singing through exceeding love and sweetness. And suddenly there
shone round them a light from heaven, and they fell to the ground, and the
holy body was taken up by angels into heaven.
....Then the blessed Thomas told them how he was singing mass in India - he
still had on his sacerdotal robes. He, not knowing the word of God, had been
brought to the Mount of Olivet, and saw the most holy body of the blessed
Mary going up into heaven."

A TREATISE ON NATURE AND GRACE, AGAINST
PELAGIUS. BY AURELIUS AUGUSTIN, BISHOP OF HIPPO, ADDRESSED TO TIMASIUS AND
JACOBUS (A.D. 415): "CH42. THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY MAY HAVE LIVED WITHOUT
SIN. NONE OF THE SAINTS BESIDES HER WITHOUT SIN. We must except the holy
Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the
subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what
abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon
her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin."

References to Priests, Bishops, and Saying Mass

REGISTER OF THE EPISTLES OF SAINT GREGORY THE
GREAT, BOOK V,EPISTLE XXI TO CONSTANTINA AUGUSTA (6th century): "Further, a
bishop of the city of Salona has been ordained without the knowledge of me
and my responsalis, and a thing has been done which never happened under any
former princes. When I heard of this, I at once sent word to that
prevaricator, who had been irregularly ordained, that he must not presume by
any means to celebrate the solemnities of mass..."

DECREES OF FABIAN (3rd century) FROM THE CODEX
OF DECREES IN SIXTEEN BOOKS: "II. That an illiterate presbyter may not
venture to celebrate mass. The sacrifice is not to be accepted from the hand
of a priest who is not competent to discharge the prayers or actions (actiones)
and other observances in the mass according to religious usage."

SELECTIONS FROM THE LETTERS OF ST. AMBROSE:
MEMORIAL OF SYMMACHUS THE PREFECT OF THE CITY, Epistle XX (4th century):
"The day after, which was Sunday, after the lessons and the sermon, when the
Catechumens were dismissed, I was teaching the creed to certain candidates
in the baptistery of the basilica. There it was reported to me that they had
sent decani from the palace, and were putting up hangings, and that part of
the people were going there. I, however, remained at my ministrations, and
began to celebrate mass."

References to the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist

LEO THE GREAT, LETTER IX, TO DIOSCORUS, BISHOP
OF ALEXANDRIA (5th century): "III. The repetition of the Holy Eucharist on
the great festivals is not undesirable: "Again, that our usage may coincide
at all points, we wish this thing also to be observed, viz. that when any of
the greater festivals has brought together a larger congregation than usual,
and too great a crowd of the faithful has assembled for one church to hold
them all at once, there should be no hesitation about repeating the oblation
of the sacrifice..."

LEO THE GREAT, LETTER LIX, TO THE CLERGY AND
PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CONSTANTINOPLE (5th century): II. They are to be
rejected who deny the truth of Christ's flesh, a truth repeated by every
recipient at the Holy Eucharist. Let such men be rejected by the holy
members of Christ's Body, and let not catholic liberty suffer the yoke of
the unfaithful to be laid upon it. For they are to be reckoned outside the
Divine grace, and outside the mystery of man's salvation, who, denying the
nature of our flesh in Christ, gainsay the Gospel and oppose the Creed
.....In what density of ignorance, in what utter sloth must they hitherto
have lain, not to have learnt from hearing, nor understood from reading,
that which in God's Church is so constantly in men's mouths, that even the
tongues of infants do not keep silence upon the truth of Christ's Body and
Blood at the rite of Holy Communion? For in that mystic distribution of
spiritual nourishment, that which is given and taken is of such a kind that
receiving the virtue of the celestial food we pass into the flesh of Him,
Who became our flesh."

THE CANONS OF THE 318 HOLY FATHERS ASSEMBLED
IN THE CITY OF NICE, IN BITHYNIA, CANONS XVIII (A.D. 325): "It has come to
the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in some districts and
cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, whereas
neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should
give the Body of Christ to them that do offer. And this also has been made
known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops.
Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain
within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop
and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist
according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or
the presbyter administer to them. Furthermore, let not the deacons sit among
the presbyters, for that is contrary to canon and order. And if, after this
decree, any one shall refuse to obey, let him be deposed from the
diaconate."

REGISTER OF THE EPISTLES OF SAINT GREGORY THE
GREAT, BOOK IV, EPISTLE XXVII, TO JANUARIUS, BISHOP (6th century): "We
therefore desire thee to search out the authors of the charge against him:
and, unless he who sent those same letters be prepared to support his
charges by canonical and most strict proofs, let him on no account approach
the mystery of holy communion."

ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, (Cateches. Mystagog.
v.(1)), (4th century): "When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy
wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand
as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the
hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen."

JOHN OF DAMASCUS: AN EXACT EXPOSITION OF THE
ORTHODOX FAITH, BOOK IV, CHAPTER XIII (7th century): "Concerning the holy
and immaculate Mysteries of the Lord. With all our strength, therefore, let
us beware lest we receive communion from or grant it to heretics; Give not
that which is holy unto the dogs, saith the Lord, neither cast ye your
pearls before swine, lest we become partakers in their dishonour and
condemnation"

References to the Bishop of Rome and the Lineage of Popes

IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES -- BOOK III (CHAP. I
to CHAP. XIV) (2nd century): "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and
built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the
episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To
him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the
apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric."

LETTERS OF ST. AUGUSTIN, LETTER LIII, TO
GENEROSUS, OUR MOST LOVED AND HONOURABLE BROTHER, FORTUNATUS ALYPIUS AND
AUGUSTIN SEND GREETING IN THE LORD (A.D. 400): "For if the lineal succession
of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and
benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to
whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: "Upon this
rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it!" The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken
continuity were these: Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus,
Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus,
Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius,
Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus,
Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus,
and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius.

References to the Catholic Church being the True Church of Christ

A TREATISE CONCERNING THE CORRECTION OF THE
DONATISTS, EPISTLE CLXXXV, A LETTER OF AUGUSTIN TO BONIFACE, Ch 10 (5th
century): "Let them therefore feel bitter grief for their detestable error
of the past, as Peter did for his fear that led him into falsehood, and let
them come to the true Church of Christ, that is, to the Catholic Church our
mother; let them be in it clergy, let them be bishops unto its profit, as
they have been hitherto in enmity against it."

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS, BOOKS III &
IV, (3rd to 4th century): "But the splendor of the Catholic and only true
Church, which is always the same, grew in magnitude and power, and reflected
its piety and simplicity and freedom, and the modesty and purity of its
inspired life and philosophy to every nation both of Greeks and of
Barbarians."

References to the Sacrament of Penance (Confession)

ST. AUGUSTIN, TEN HOMILIES ON THE FIRST
EPISTLE OF JOHN (5th century): "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and
just to forgive us our sins, and to purge us from all iniquity."

THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF GREGORY OF NYSSA,
BOOK XI (4th century): "For if the confession of the revered and precious
Names of the Holy Trinity is useless, and the customs of the Church
unprofitable, and if among these customs is the sign of the cross, prayer,
baptism, confession of sins, a ready zeal to keep the commandment, right
ordering of character, sobriety of life, regard to justice, the effort not
to be excited by passion, or enslaved by pleasure, or to fall short in moral
excellence..."

THE THIRD PART OF THE CONFERENCES OF JOHN
CASSIAN, CONFERENCE OF ABBOT PINUFIUS ON THE END OF PENITENCE AND THE MARKS
OF SATISFACTION, CHAPTER VIII (4th century): "Of the various fruits of
penitence FOR after that grace of baptism which is common to all, and that
most precious gift of martyrdom which is gained by being washed in blood,
there are many fruits of penitence by which we can succeed in expiating our
sins......Moreover by means of confession of sins, their absolution is
granted..."

TWO BOOKS OF ST. AMBROSE, BISHOP OF MILAN
CONCERNING REPENTANCE, BOOK II, CHAPTER VII (4th century): "Why do you fear
to confess your sins to our good Lord? "Set them forth," He says, "that thou
mayest be justified." The rewards of justification are set before him who is
still guilty of sin, for he is justified who voluntarily confesses his own
sin; and lastly, "the just man is his own accuser in the beginning of his
speaking." The Lord knows all things, but He waits for your words, not that
He may punish, but that He may pardon."

SERMONS ON SELECTED LESSONS OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT, SERMON LXXXV, ON THE WORDS OF THE GOSPEL, JOHN IX. 4 AND 31, "WE
MUST WORK THE WORKS OF HIM THAT SENT ME," ETC. AGAINST THE ARIANS (4th
century): "Apply yourselves then earnestly to prayer, ye sinners: confess
your sins, pray that they may be blotted out, pray that they may be
diminished, pray that as ye increase, they may decrease: yet do not despair,
and sinners though ye be, pray. For who hath not sinned? Begin with the
priests. To the priests it is said, "First offer sacrifices for your own
sins, and so for the people." The sacrifices convicted the priests that if
any one should call himself righteous and without sin, it might be answered
him, "I look not at what thou sayest, but at what thou offerest; thine own
victim convicteth thee."

GREGORY NAZIANZEN, ORATION XL, ON THE HOLY
LIGHTS AND ON HOLY BAPTISM (4th century): " Do not disdain to confess your
sins, knowing how John baptized, that by present shame you may escape from
future shame (for this too is a part of the future punishment); and prove
that you really hate sin by making a shew of it openly, and triumphing over
it as worthy of contempt."

ST. AUGUSTIN ON THE PSALMS, PSALM XCV (5th
century): "The more therefore thou despairedst of thyself on account of thy
iniquities, do thou confess thy sins; for so much greater is the praise of
Him who forgiveth, as is the fulness of the penitent's confession more
abundant. Let us not therefore imagine that we have receded from the song of
praise, in understanding here that confession by which we acknowledge our
transgressions: this is even a part of the song of praise; for when we
confess our sins, we praise the glory of God."

CONSTITUTIONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES, BOOK VII,
CONCERNING HYPOCRISY, AND OBEDIENCE TO THE LAWS, AND CONFESSION OF SINS (4th
century): "XIV. Thou shalt hate all hypocrisy; and whatsoever is pleasing to
the Lord, that shalt thou do. By no means forsake the commands of the Lord.
But thou shalt observe what things thou hast received from Him, neither
adding to them nor taking away from them. "For thou shalt not add unto His
words, lest He convict thee, and thou becomest a liar." Thou shalt confess
thy sins unto the Lord thy God; and thou shalt not add unto them, that it
may be well with thee from the Lord thy God, who willeth not the death of a
sinner, but his repentance."

References to Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead

ST. AUGUSTIN: THE ENCHIRIDION (ON FAITH, HOPE,
AND LOVE), CH69, IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE THAT SOME BELIEVERS MAY PASS THROUGH A
PURGATORIAL FIRE IN THE FUTURE LIFE (5th century): "And it is not impossible
that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a
matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful,
whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in
proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that
perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it. This cannot, however, be
the case of any of those of whom it is said, that they "shall not inherit
the kingdom of God," unless after suitable repentance their sins be forgiven
them. When I say "suitable," I mean that they are not to be unfruitful in
almsgiving; for Holy Scripture lays so much stress on this virtue, that our
Lord tells us beforehand, that He will ascribe no merit to those on His
right hand but that they abound in it, and no defect to those on His left
hand but their want of it, when He shall say to the former, "Come, ye
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom," and to the latter, "Depart from
me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire."

Saint Augustine, ON CARE TO BE HAD FOR THE
DEAD [DE CURA PRO MORTUIS] (5th century): "Howbeit it is a question which
surpasses the strength of my understanding, after what manner the Martyrs
aid them who by them, it is certain, are helped; whether themselves by
themselves be present at the same time in so different places, and by so
great distance lying apart one from another, either where their Memorials
are, or beside their Memorials, wheresoever they are felt to be present: or
whether, while they themselves, in a place congruous with their merits, are
removed from all converse with mortals, and yet do in a general sort pray
for the needs of their suppliants, (like as we pray for the dead, to whom
however we are not present, nor know where they be or what they be
doing)..."

HOMILIES OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON THE FIRST
EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, HOMILY XLI, 1 COR. xv.
35, 36 (4th century): "Let us not then be weary in giving aid to the
departed, both by offering on their behalf and obtaining prayers for them:
for the common Expiation of the world is even before us. Therefore with
boldness do we then intreat for the whole world, and name their names with
those of martyrs, of confessors, of priests. For in truth one body are we
all, though some members are more glorious than others; and it is possible
from every source to gather pardon for them, from our prayers, from our
gifts in their behalf, from those whose names are named with theirs. Why
therefore dost thou grieve? Why mourn, when it is in thy power to gather so
much pardon for the departed?"

HOMILIES OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, HOMILY XXI,
ACTS IX. 26, 27 (4th century): "Knowing these things, let us devise what
consolations we can for the departed, instead of tears, instead of laments,
instead of tombs, our alms, our prayers, our oblations, that both they and
we may attain unto the promised blessings, by the grace and loving-kindness
of His only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and
the Holy Ghost together be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, world
without end. Amen."

References to St. Peter being Chief of the Apostles

LEO THE GREAT, SERMON LXXXII, ON THE FEAST OF
THE APOSTLES PETER AND PAUL (5th century): "III. On the dispersing of the
Twelve, St. Peter was sent to Rome. For when the twelve Apostles, after
receiving through the Holy Ghost the power of speaking with all tongues, had
distributed the world into parts among themselves, and undertaken to
instruct it in the Gospel, the most blessed Peter, chief of the Apostolic
band, was appointed to the citadel of the Roman empire, that the light of
Truth which was being displayed for the salvation of all the nations, might
spread itself more effectively throughout the body of the world from the
head itself. What nation had not representatives then living in this city;
or what peoples did not know what Rome had learnt? Here it was that the
tenets of philosophy must be crushed, here that the follies of earthly
wisdom must be dispelled, here that the cult of demons must be refuted, here
that the blasphemy of all idolatries must be rooted out, here where the most
persistent superstition had gathered together all the various errors which
had anywhere been devised."

LEO THE GREAT, SERMON III (5th century): "II.
From Christ and through S. Peter the priesthood is handed on in perpetuity
For the solidity of that faith which was praised in the chief of the
Apostles is perpetual: and as that remains which Peter believed in Christ,
so that remains which Christ instituted in Peter."

THE EPISTLES OF ZEPHYRINUS, SECOND EPISTLE, TO
THE BISHOPS OF THE PROVINCE OF EGYPT (3rd century): "ZEPHYRINUS, archbishop
of the city of Rome, to the most beloved brethren who serve the Lord in
Egypt. So great trust have we received from the Lord, the Founder of this
holy seat and of the apostolic church, and from the blessed Peter, chief of
the apostles, that we may labour with unwearied affection for the universal
Church which has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, and aid all who serve
the Lord, and give help to all who live piously by apostolic authority..."

THE EPISTLES OF POPE PONTIANUS (3rd century):
"and that the blessed Apostle Peter, the chief of the apostles, in whose
cause you spend yourselves, may open the gate of that same glory."

THE EPISTLES OF POPE FABIAN (3rd century):
"Whence also the blessed chief of the apostles, Peter, addressing the people
at the ordination of Clement..."

HOMILIES OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON THE GOSPEL
ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN, HOMILY LXXII (JOHN 12, 13 & 14) (4th century):
"Again, why did he use these words, not at any other point of time, but only
when the chief of the Apostles beckoned? That thou mightest not deem that
Peter beckoned to him as being greater, he saith that the thing took place
because of the great love (which Jesus bare him)."

THE SEVEN BOOKS OF AUGUSTIN, BISHOP OF HIPPO,
ON BAPTISM, AGAINST THE DONATISTS (BOOK VII) (5th century): "It is well,
however, that they so constantly bear in mind that it was possible even for
Peter, the chief of the apostles, to have been at one time minded
otherwise..."

References to the Authority of St. Peter

LEO THE GREAT, LETTER XIV, TO ANASTASIUS,
BISHOP OF THESSALONICA (5th century): "Leo, bishop of the City of Rome, to
Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica. I. Prefatory. If with true reasoning you
perceived all that has been committed to you, brother, by the blessed
apostle Peter's authority, and what has also been entrusted to you by our
favour, and would weigh it fairly, we should be able greatly to rejoice at
your zealous discharge of the responsibility imposed on you."

LEO THE GREAT, LETTER CV, (TO PULCHERIA
AUGUSTA ABOUT THE SELF-SEEKING OF ANATOLIUS) (5th century): "Leo the bishop
to Pulcheria Augusta. III. Only by imitating his predecessor will he regain
Leo's confidence: the assent of the bishops is declared null and void. But
the bishops' assents, which are opposed to the regulations of the holy
canons composed at Nicaea in conjunction with your faithful Grace, we do not
recognize, and by the blessed Apostle Peter's authority we absolutely dis-annul
in comprehensive terms, in all ecclesiastical cases obeying those laws which
the Holy Ghost set forth by the 318 bishops for the pacific observance of
all priests in such sort that even if a much greater number were to pass a
different decree to theirs, whatever was opposed to their constitution would
have to be held in no respect."

RECOGNITIONS OF CLEMENT. BOOK X, CH VI,
PETER'S AUTHORITY (1st century): "But I should like that one of you, and not
Peter, should answer what I have said; for it is not fitting to take words
and instruction at his hand, with questions; but when he gives a deliverance
on any subject, that should be held without answering again. And therefore
let us keep him as an umpire; so that if at any time our discussion does not
come to an issue, he may declare what seems good to him, and so give an
undoubted end to doubtful matters. And now therefore I could believe,
content with his sole opinion, if he expressed any opinion; and this is what
I shall do at last. Yet I wish first to see if it is possible by discussion
to find what is sought. My wish therefore is, that Clement should begin
first, and should show if there is any good or evil in substance or in
actions."